Brand Preference survey of Laptop

Submitted by

Anish Baidya

Term IV

Business Research

Submitted to

Mr. Pravat Uprety

Ace Institute of Management

Pokhara University

Submitted for the Partial fulfillment of

Business Research Methodology

Kathmandu

November, 2014
 i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank our course instructor Mr. Pravat Uprety for his continuous
support and guidance without which this report would not have been possible. I would also
like to take a note to thank Pokhara University as well as Ace Institute of Management for
providing me with this opportunity to enhance the level of knowledge of research
methodology

I would also like to extend my deep gratitude to all the respondents who took the effort and
time to fill up the questionnaire which helped me carry out this research. A sincere thanks
goes to all my friends as well as who provided me with their valuable feedback as well as
guidance throughout this research project.
 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................... i

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1

Chapter I..................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 2

1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Research Objective .......................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Research Limitations ....................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................... 4

1.5.1 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 5

1.5.2 Research Hypothesis ................................................................................................. 5

Chapter II ................................................................................................................................... 7

Literature Review....................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Literature Review............................................................................................................. 7

Chapter III ................................................................................................................................ 10

Research Design and methodology.......................................................................................... 10

3.1 Type of Research ........................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Sources of data ............................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Questionnaire Design ..................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Sampling Design ............................................................................................................ 11

3.4.1 Population and sample size ..................................................................................... 11

3.4.2 Sampling frame and sampling technique ................................................................ 11

3.5 Data collection procedure .............................................................................................. 11

 iii

3.6 Data Management and Analysis .................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER IV .......................................................................................................................... 12

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter V ................................................................................................................................. 25

summary, Conclusion and recommendation ............................................................................ 25

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 27

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 28
 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The research paper’s primary objective was to fulfill the partial requirement of business
research methodology course. It is an academic descriptive applied research. The research
paper enlightens the current trend for preference of various brand of laptop by the consumers
of various age group, educational background, income level and gender. 8 major laptop
brands available in the market at present were chosen to conduct this research. They were
Acer, Sony, MSI, Dell, Apple, Benq, Samsung, HP and Lenovo.

A total of 102 respondents participated in the research where 62 were male and 40 were
female where 48 respondents were involved in service as their main occupation followed by
students and self-employed individuals. 82 respondents out of 102 belonged to 18-27 years
age group and hence the research’s outcome can be said to be highly influenced by the
youths. Dell was the most preferred brand where 37.3% of the total respondent chose the
brand as a preferred brand for purchasing a laptop. Likewise Acer and HP were second and
third preferred brand of laptop.

Dell was the most known brand of laptop amongst 102 respondents. Acer Apple and Sony
were the other 2 most known brand. Apple scored the best score on scoring amongst other 7
brands. Even with the best score, Apple was not the most preferred brand by the consumers.
This could be explained by various other factors that affects the purchasing behavior like
price, availability, repair and maintenance services etc.

Demographic factor except Gender had no significant relationship with brand preference of
laptop. Brand Awareness had no significant relationship with brand preferences. Whereas
availability, price, brand name, technical specifications, repair and maintenance services,
durability and easy availability of spare parts had significant relationship with brand
preference of laptop by the consumers.
 2

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Computer has become an integrated part of life at present context. Without computer life
would have been much difficult for both working personals and students. On the introductory
stage, computers were the means of computing complex mathematical calculations only. The
size of the computers were merely too large that a single computer occupied 2-3 rooms. But
the technological advancement has made the computers much faster and smaller. The
smallest variant of computer is the laptop which is portable and comes with high end
specifications as of the huge computers.

There are various brands of laptops available in the local market. Even if Nepalese economic
growth is not as much as expected, Nepalese are highly congruent towards accepting the
technological change and modern gadgets. There are numbers of electronic gadgets that are
available in the Nepalese market even if the brand has not yet entered in the market formally.
Apple’s iphone can be taken as the best example. In the city of Kathmandu, we can see
iphone with almost every 1 in 5 people that we meet. But the brand has not been launched
officially in Nepalese market till date. The craze of using latest gadget amongst the youths is
increasing. This trend is highly reflected amongst business personals too as the youths are the
businessmen of future.

The trend of growth of technological advancement and the usage of modern tools and
technology is skyrocketing. In the present context, everybody wants to get their hands on the
latest technology/ model of an electrical gadget to explore the new features enrolled with
these products. Additionally due to heavy load shedding hours in Nepal, the battery operated
electronic gadget’s market has tremendous opportunities.

With the tremendous opportunities of the market scenario of laptop and electronic gadgets, a
survey is conducted as a partial fulfillment of Business Research Methodology course in
MBA evening.
 3

1.2 Problem Statement

Several researches’ has been conducted to identify the consumer’s behavior on choosing a
specific brand of laptop. But, due to rapid technological advancement and availability of
extensive substitute products in the market; the needs and preferences of general consumers
are changing every day. To trace the exact variable that affects the consumer’s behavior in
purchasing/ choosing various brands of laptops is almost impossible as it is dependent upon
both quantitative as well as qualitative variables. Qualitative variables changes as time
changes and there is no hard and fast rule to identify and quantify these qualitative variables.
But, for a specific time frame the outcomes of the research would be beneficial as it identifies
the current preferences of the consumers.

1.3 Research Objective

The following are the research objectives of the proposed research:

 To complete the partial requirement of the academic course of business research

methodology.
 To identify the variables that can be considered for choosing a specific brand of
laptop.
 To identify the brand of laptops that belongs to the consideration set of consumers.
 To identify the brand preference of laptops according to various demographic
variables.
 To identify the expectations of consumers from various brand laptops available in the
market.
 To assist the readers of the report to identify the current expectations of the general
consumers.

1.4 Research Limitations

 The research is limited to academic requirement and not for detail market analysis.
 Research has been done using quantitative variables and hence the qualitative factors
affecting the laptop brand preferences are not considered.
 Confidence level of hypothesis tests made are set at 95% (as a general practice) to
perform various statistical analysis
 4

1.5 Theoretical Framework

Theoretical framework of this study “Brand Preference survey of Laptop” is as following:

Brand Awareness
 Apple
 Acer
 Lenovo
 Sony
 HP
 Belkin
 Samsung
 MSI
 Baliyo
 Others

Demographic segmentations Brand Preference

survey of Laptop
 Age
 Sex
 Socio-economic group

Factors affecting Preferences of

consumers
 Availability
 Price
 Brand
 Technical Specifications
 Repair and Maintenance
services
 Durability
 Easy availability of spare
parts

Figure 1 Schematic Diagram of the theoretical Framework

 5

1.5.1 Research Questions

For the purpose of study, the research is based on the following questions:

1. Is there any relationship between brand awareness and brand preferences of laptop?
2. Is there any relationship between demographic factors and laptop preferences?
3. Is there any relationship between other factors and brand preferences of laptop?

1.5.2 Research Hypothesis

1. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between brand awareness
and preference towards laptop brands.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is significant relationship between brand
awareness and preference towards laptop brands.

2. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between Demographic

factors and preference towards laptop brands.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is significant relationship between Demographic
factors and preference towards laptop brands

3. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between Availability and

preference of laptop brands.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is significant relationship between Availability
and preference of laptop brands..

4. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between Price and

preference of laptop brands.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is significant relationship between Price and
preference of laptop brands..

5. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between Technical

specification and preference of laptop brands.
 6

Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is relationship between Technical specification

and preference of laptop brands.

6. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between Repair &

maintenance services and preference of laptop brands..
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is significant relationship between Repair &
maintenance and preference of laptop brands..

7. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no relationship between Durability and preference of

laptop brands.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is significant relationship between Durability and
preference of laptop brands.

8. Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between Easy availability

of spare parts and preference of laptop brands.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is significant relationship between Easy
availability of spare parts and preference of laptop brands.
 7

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature Review

Apple’s brand preference rating fell by 5.1 points between Q2 and Q4 2013, one of the
weakest performances of 21 major technology brands in the latest survey published by
Strategy Analytics’ Consumer Metrix service. Of particular concern to Apple is that its rating
fell furthest in its core affluent and younger demographics. Samsung remained in first place,
gaining ground in continental Europe but falling back in the US and UK. The best
performance came from Chinese brand Huawei with an increase of 3.8 points since Q2 2013
and strong gains in upper income segments. The brand preference rating is an indication of
the balance between consumers who say they would choose a brand and those who would
not, when buying technology products such as computers, mobile phones, TVs and related
products, based on a survey of 6180 respondents in the US and Europe.
(http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=pressreleaseviewer&a0=5489)

(http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=pressreleaseviewer&a0=5489)

The literature suggests two major ways of creating preference: (1) The "exposure" route, and
(2) the "determination" route. The first is the mere exposure effect, while the second is the
more traditional cognitive information processing method, where affect and preference are
created through the processing of product attribute information (Zajonc and Markus 1982).
 8

Most marketing communication theory and practice are based on economic man theory
(Bagozzi 1991; Kotler 1994; McCarthy and Perreault 1987). The basic idea of this theory is
that preference is built on the cognitive analysis of product information, from which a highest
utility option is calculated and chosen. This means that for brand preference to develop, the
consumer must first be presented with information from which to make a rational decision.
This is also the main underlying theory that explains the "determination route" to persuasion.

Overall preference for a brand is determined by comparing it to both alternatives and an ideal
product prototype assumed to be present in the minds of consumers. When a brand is closer
to this ideal prototype on key decision variables, preference for the brand is created and or
strengthened (Johnson and Puto 1987; Lefkoff-Hagius and Mason 1993). When measuring
preferences, under the determination route, an overall ranking instrument or a weighted
attribute composite using interval scales has been typically employed (Huber, et al. 1993;
Zajonc and Markus 1982). Others have used aggregate variables consisting of statements
such as "good brand" or "I would like to buy the brand" to measure preference (Costley and
Brucks 1992). These measures of preference assume that affect for a brand is generated after
cognitive processing of product (attribute) information. This means that the consumer must
be knowledgeable about the alternative, before he can judge his liking or disliking of it
(Zajonc and Markus 1982). This is the theoretical underpinning of attitude towards an object
and attitude towards action models (Fishbein and Ajzen 1980; Sujan 1985).

While many marketing communication efforts continue to rely on the economic man
assumptions (determination route to persuasion), there is a growing body of literature that
indicates preferences are primarily an affective based behavioral phenomenon that may not
always be based on cognitive processing (Zajonc and Markus 1982). Going back to the work
of Fechner (1876), Maslow (1937), and Zajonc (1968), affect and preference have been
created for an object by merely exposing the subject to that object repeatedly. Memory of the
exposure does not even need to be present for this effect to demonstrate itself (Janiszewski
1993; Matlin 1971). Matlin (1971), for example, found that old stimuli were preferred to new
stimuli, even when subjects expressed no memory of previous exposure to the old stimuli.
Other studies have concluded that consumers seek to avoid unpleasant situations, and that one
 9

way they do this is by sticking with familiar objects or brands (Aaker et al. 1992). Yet the
literature that fully explains the processes behind this exposure effect, and all the conditions
necessary for it to work, is still quite limited (Bornstein 1989).

There is some evidence which suggests that consumers engage in more extensive information
processing in high-involvement purchases than low-involvement purchases (Greenwald and
Leavitt 1984; Ray 1973). To create preference for a particular alternative in a high
involvement situation, it may be more important for a firm to provide extensive information
to the consumer (Batra and Ray 1983; Bloch, Sherrel and Ridgway 1986; Gardner, Mitchell
and Russo 1985; Mitchell 1979; Ray 1979; Aaker, Batra and Myers 1992). It would be
expected, therefore, that the exposure effect will have a relatively bigger influence on the
formation of preferences for low-involvement purchases than for high involvement
purchases.

High-involvement purchases are often assumed to be those that carry greater risk because of
the product's high price or visibility, yet there is also evidence that many consumers make
decisions on what are often considered high involvement products, based on very little
information (Park and Srinivasan 1994). One of the major problems with empirically testing
the impact of involvement on decision making behavior is lack of a single widely accepted
definition and operationalization of the involvement construct (Batra and Ray 1983; Gardner,
Mitchell and Russo 1985; Schiffman and Kanuk 1991; Aaker, Batra and Myers 1992).
Definitions of involvement based on product characteristics, become problematic because
they assume, but do not actually measure the individual consumer's motivation to seek out
and carefully process information prior to a decision. Evidence suggests that most consumers
make very few high motivation/involvement purchases that result from the well-informed
state assumed by the determination route (Hawkins and Hoch 1992; Kassarjian 1978;
Olshavsky and Granbois 1979). Thus the exposure route to preference creation may be
prevalent for a large proportion of the purchases, making it an important topic for further
study.
 10

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This is a quantitative study and quantitative variables are analyzed and interlinked with
determining factors of brand preference of general consumers. A questionnaire was designed
accordingly and distributed through social networking sites so that large numbers of
consumers can participate in the survey and the outcome can reflect larger consumer base.

3.1 Type of Research

This is a quantitative research and a questionnaire was designed as per the literatures
available and general market analysis. Further it is be descriptive research as it describes the
various factors attributing towards specific brand preference of laptop.

3.2 Sources of data

Primary data was collected through questionnaire. The questionnaire was self administered as
it is expected that a laptop user would definitely be familiar with the terminologies used in
the questionnaire and the respondent would be able to administer the questionnaire on their
selves.

3.3 Questionnaire Design

There are 3 sections of the questionnaire. The first section is intended to identify the socio-
demographic background of the respondent. The second section highlights the awareness
level of various brands of laptops and their probability of being chosen in the consideration
set while purchasing. The third section highlights the various factors that can affect on
choosing a specific brand of laptop.
 11

3.4 Sampling Design

3.4.1 Population and sample size

The population of this study is infinite as it is practically impossible to get response from
each and every laptop users. Moreover, the number of laptop users is uncertain and can
change from time to time. 102 respondents are selected.

3.4.2 Sampling frame and sampling technique

Sampling frame cannot be identified as the population is unknown. Therefore a non random
sampling technique has been used.

3.5 Data collection procedure

Questionnaire was designed and circulated through email and various social networking sites.
The questionnaires are self administered by the respondents as it is expected that laptop users
would definitely be familiar with the terminologies used in the questionnaire.

3.6 Data Management and Analysis

SPSS package has been used for data analysis; Microsoft Excel has been used for generating
various tables and charts and Microsoft word has been used to interpret the outcomes.
 12

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS

Total of 102 respondents participated in this survey. Out of which 60.80% were Male and
39.20% were female (Table 1). The study was conducted for the requirement of academic
research requirement. Respondents were divided in 5 different age groups. First below 18,
second 18-27, third 28-37, fourth 38-47 and fifth 48 and above. 80.40% of the respondents
who participated in this survey belonged to age group 18-27; 16.7% respondents were from
age group 28-37 and the remaining 2.90% respondents were from age group 39-47 (Table 2).
However, 2 of the extreme age group’s (i.e. below 18 and 48 and above) respondents did not
participate in this survey.

Likewise, 66.7% of respondents belonged from Kathmandu and the remaining 33.3%
belonged from out of Kathmandu valley (Table 3). 37.3% of respondents chose Dell as their
preferred brand of laptop. 18% chose Acer and 16% chose HP and other brands. Only 14%
chose Apple brand as their preferred brand (Table 4).

60.8% of the respondents were aware of the brand Acer. 51% of the respondents were aware
of the brand Sony. Likewise 24.5%, 75.5%, 57.8%, 21.6%, 46.1%, 57.8%, 55.9% and 11.8%
respondents were aware of the brands MSI, Dell, Apple, Benq, Samsung, HP, Lenovo and
other brands (Table 5) respectively. The average amount in rupees that respondents wanted to
spend was Rs 62,235.29 with the standard deviation of Rs. 21,420.90. Maximum number of
respondents said Rs. 50,000 is the ideal price that they would prefer to pay while purchasing
any laptop (Table 6; Fig. 2)
 13

Figure 2 Average willingness to pay while purchasing a laptop

3.9% of the respondents were involved in business. 12.7% respondents were self-employed
whereas 47.1% of respondents were from service background. 29.4% respondents were
students and remaining 6.9% respondents came from other occupation than the listed ones
(Table 7).

Average score of Acer brand was 2.72 out of 5 where 1 was the best and 5 was the worst.
Similarly, Sony’s average score was 2.75, MSI’s average score was 3.18, Dell’s average
score was 2.68, Apple’s average score was 1.91, BenQ’s average score was 3.21, Samsung’s
average score was 2.77, HP’s average score was 2.62 and Lenovo’s average score was 2.69
(Table 8). Here in the scale of 5, 3 is the cut off point where below 3 is considered as the best
perceived brand and above 3 is the brand that is perceived as comparatively less preferred
brand. Acer, Sony, Dell, Apple, Samsung, HP and Lenovo are hence perceived as better
brands available in the market. Apple scoring 1.91 on an average reflects that it is the best
perceived brand by the customers whereas HP and Dell are second and third best perceived
brands among the listed 8 brands.
 14

Hypothesis testing

To test hypothesis if there is any relationship between brand awareness and preference
towards laptop brands, all 8 different brands are compared with the awareness of each brand
and their preference towards the same brand. Chi-Square test is used as test statistics.

Table 9. Awareness_acer * Preferred_Brand

Crosstab
Preferred_Brand
Total
Acer Apple Dell HP Others
Count 14 6 22 10 10 62
Yes % within
22.6% 9.7% 35.5% 16.1% 16.1% 100.0%
Awareness_acer
Awareness_acer
Count 4 8 16 6 6 40
No % within
10.0% 20.0% 40.0% 15.0% 15.0% 100.0%
Awareness_acer
Count 18 14 38 16 16 102
Total % within
17.6% 13.7% 37.3% 15.7% 15.7% 100.0%
Awareness_acer

As shown in table 9, 62 respondents out of 102 were aware of Acer brand. Only 22.6%
respondents who were aware of the acer brand actually chose acer as their preferred brand.
Whereas 35.5% respondents who were unaware of the acer brand chose Dell as their
preferred brand.

Table 9.1. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4.241a 4 .374 .386

Likelihood Ratio 4.361 4 .359 .382
Fisher's Exact Test 4.212 .383

Here, since there are counts less than 5, we use Fisher’s Exact significance level to test the
hypothesis (i.e., 0.383) which is greater than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and there
is no significant relationship between brand preference and brand awareness for Acer.
 15

Table 10. Awareness Sony * Preferred Brand

Crosstab
Preferred_Brand
Total
Acer Apple Dell HP Others
Count 10 5 18 8 11 52
Yes % within
19.2% 9.6% 34.6% 15.4% 21.2% 100.0%
Awareness Sony
Awareness_Sony
Count 8 9 20 8 5 50
No % within
16.0% 18.0% 40.0% 16.0% 10.0% 100.0%
Awareness Sony
Count 18 14 38 16 16 102
Total % within
17.6% 13.7% 37.3% 15.7% 15.7% 100.0%
Awareness Sony

As shown in table 10, 52 respondents out of 102 were aware of Sony brand. But, since Sony
brand along with MSI, Benq, Samsung and Lenovo were significantly low, they all are
merged in the ‘others’ category. Here, even if 52 respondents were aware of sony brand,
34.6% chose Dell as their preferred brand.

Table 10.1. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 3.683a 4 .451 .460

Likelihood Ratio 3.754 4 .440 .458

Fisher's Exact Test 3.649 .461

Here, since none of awareness level of the brand Sony counts less than 5 on individual cell,
Significance level of Pearson’s Chi-Square is taken for testing hypothesis. Hence, we accept
null hypothesis as Asymp sig. value of 0.451 is greater than 0.05 and there is no significant
relationship between brand awareness of Sony and its preference.

Table 11. Awareness MSI * Preferred Brand

Crosstab
Preferred_Brand
Total
Acer Apple Dell HP Others
Count 5 5 7 2 6 25
Yes % within
20.0% 20.0% 28.0% 8.0% 24.0% 100.0%
Awareness_MSI
Awareness_MSI
Count 13 9 31 14 10 77
No % within
16.9% 11.7% 40.3% 18.2% 13.0% 100.0%
Awareness_MSI
Count 18 14 38 16 16 102
Total % within
17.6% 13.7% 37.3% 15.7% 15.7% 100.0%
Awareness_MSI
 16

Only 25 respondents out of 102 were aware of MSI brand laptop. But the preference of
MSI brand laptop was significantly low even if few respondents were aware of the brand.
28% respondents who were aware of the MSI brand preferred Dell brand.

Table 11.1 Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4.522a 4 .340 .346

Likelihood Ratio 4.552 4 .336 .370

Fisher's Exact Test 4.564 .331

Here, since none of awareness level of the brand MSI counts less than 5 on individual cell,
Significance level of Pearson’s Chi-Square is taken for testing hypothesis. Hence, we accept
null hypothesis as Asymp sig. value of 0.340 is greater than 0.05 and there is no significant
relationship between brand awareness of MSI and its preference.

Table 12. Awareness Dell * Preferred Brand

Crosstab
Preferred_Brand
Total
Acer Apple Dell HP Others

Count 14 8 33 12 10 77
Yes
% within
18.2% 10.4% 42.9% 15.6% 13.0% 100.0%
Awareness_Dell
Awareness_Dell
Count 4 6 5 4 6 25
No
% within
16.0% 24.0% 20.0% 16.0% 24.0% 100.0%
Awareness_Dell

Count 18 14 38 16 16 102
Total
% within
17.6% 13.7% 37.3% 15.7% 15.7% 100.0%
Awareness_Dell

77 respondents were aware of Dell brand. Here, out of 77, 33 respondents preferred dell
brand laptops. The relationship of brand awareness and the preference of brand is seen
positive incase of Dell brand laptop.
 17

Table 12.1 Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 6.706a 4 .152 .155

Likelihood Ratio 6.656 4 .155 .175

Fisher's Exact Test 6.823 .136

Here, since there are counts less than 5, we use Fisher’s Exact significance level to test the
hypothesis (i.e., 0.136) which is greater than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and there
is no significant relationship between brand preference and brand awareness for Dell.

Table 13. Awareness Apple * Preferred Brand

Crosstab
Preferred_Brand
Total
Acer Apple Dell HP Others

Count 11 12 18 9 9 59
Yes
% within
18.6% 20.3% 30.5% 15.3% 15.3% 100.0%
Awareness_apple
Awareness_apple
Count 7 2 20 7 7 43
No
% within
16.3% 4.7% 46.5% 16.3% 16.3% 100.0%
Awareness_apple

Count 18 14 38 16 16 102
Total
% within
17.6% 13.7% 37.3% 15.7% 15.7% 100.0%
Awareness_apple
Table 13 shows the frequency table of Apple brand awareness and respondent’s brand
preferences. 59 respondents out of 102 were aware of Apple brand. Here 30.5% of
respondents who were aware of Apple brand preferred Dell brand whereas only 20.3%
respondents chose apple as their preferred brand.

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 6.282a 4 .179 .184

Likelihood Ratio 6.908 4 .141 .154

Fisher's Exact Test 6.420 .169

Here, since there are counts less than 5, we use Fisher’s Exact significance level to test the
hypothesis (i.e., 0.169) which is greater than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and there
is no significant relationship between brand preference and brand awareness for Apple.
 18

Table 14. Awareness Benq * Preferred Brand

Crosstab
Preferred_Brand
Total
Acer Apple Dell HP Others

Count 6 4 4 3 5 22
Yes
% within
27.3% 18.2% 18.2% 13.6% 22.7% 100.0%
Awareness_Benq
Awareness_Benq
Count 12 10 34 13 11 80
No
% within
15.0% 12.5% 42.5% 16.3% 13.8% 100.0%
Awareness_Benq

Count 18 14 38 16 16 102
Total
% within
17.6% 13.7% 37.3% 15.7% 15.7% 100.0%
Awareness_Benq
As stated in Table 14, only 22 respondents were aware of Benq brand laptops. The preference
of the brand was significantly low and hence is merged in ‘others’ categories. Here, 27.3% of
the respondents who were aware of Benq brand laptop preferred Acer brand.

Table 14.1. Chi-Square Tests

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.579a 4 .233 .242

Likelihood Ratio 5.807 4 .214 .240

Fisher's Exact Test 6.025 .188

Here, since there are counts less than 5, we use Fisher’s Exact significance level to test the
hypothesis (i.e., 0.188) which is greater than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and there
is no significant relationship between brand preference and brand awareness for Benq.

Table 15. Awareness Samsung * Preferred Brand

Crosstab
Preferred_Brand
Total
Acer Apple Dell HP Others

Count 10 6 16 7 8 47
Yes % within
21.3% 12.8% 34.0% 14.9% 17.0% 100.0%
Awareness_Samsung
Awareness_Samsung
Count 8 8 22 9 8 55
No % within
14.5% 14.5% 40.0% 16.4% 14.5% 100.0%
Awareness_Samsung

Count 18 14 38 16 16 102
Total
% within
17.6% 13.7% 37.3% 15.7% 15.7% 100.0%
Awareness_Samsung
 19

Out of 102 respondents, 47 respondents were aware of Samsung brand laptops. But the
preference level of Samsung brand was very low and is merged with ‘others’. 34% of
respondents who were aware of Samsung brand chose Dell as their preferred brand followed
by 21.3% respondents choosing Acer brand as their preferred brand.

Table 15.1 Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.085a 4 .897 .909

Likelihood Ratio 1.083 4 .897 .909

Fisher's Exact Test 1.177 .910

Here, since none of awareness level of the brand Samsung counts less than 5 on individual
cell, Significance level of Pearson’s Chi-Square is taken for testing hypothesis. Hence, we
accept null hypothesis as Asymp sig. value of 0.897 is greater than 0.05 and there is no
significant relationship between brand awareness of Samsung and its preference.

Table 16. Awareness HP * Preferred Brand

Crosstab
Preferred_Brand
Total
Acer Apple Dell HP Others

Count 11 5 22 11 10 59
Yes
% within
18.6% 8.5% 37.3% 18.6% 16.9% 100.0%
Awareness_HP
Awareness_HP
Count 7 9 16 5 6 43
No
% within
16.3% 20.9% 37.2% 11.6% 14.0% 100.0%
Awareness_HP

Count 18 14 38 16 16 102
Total
% within
17.6% 13.7% 37.3% 15.7% 15.7% 100.0%
Awareness_HP
59 respondents were aware of HP brand laptops. 18.6% respondents who were aware of the
HP brand chose HP and Acer brand as their preferred brand. 37.3% of the respondents who
were aware of HP brand chose Dell as their preferred brand.
 20

Table 16.1. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 3.813a 4 .432 .444

Likelihood Ratio 3.803 4 .433 .455

Fisher's Exact Test 3.701 .458

Here, since none of awareness level of the brand Samsung counts less than 5 on individual
cell, Significance level of Pearson’s Chi-Square is taken for testing hypothesis. Hence, we
accept null hypothesis as Asymp sig. value of 0.432 is greater than 0.05 and there is no
significant relationship between brand awareness of HP and its preference.

Table 17. Awareness Lenovo * Preferred Brand

Crosstab
Preferred_Brand
Total
Acer Apple Dell HP Others

Count 13 4 19 11 10 57
Yes
% within
22.8% 7.0% 33.3% 19.3% 17.5% 100.0%
Awareness_Lenovo
Awareness_Lenovo
Count 5 10 19 5 6 45
No
% within
11.1% 22.2% 42.2% 11.1% 13.3% 100.0%
Awareness_Lenovo

Count 18 14 38 16 16 102
Total
% within
17.6% 13.7% 37.3% 15.7% 15.7% 100.0%
Awareness_Lenovo
57 respondents out of 102 were aware of Lenovo brand laptops. As lenovo’s preference was also very low, it is
merged with ‘others’ category. 33.3% of respondents who were aware of Lenovo brand chose Dell as their
preferred brand followed by 22.8% respondents choosing Acer as their preferred brand.

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 8.077a 4 .089 .090

Likelihood Ratio 8.241 4 .083 .094

Fisher's Exact Test 7.835 .096

Here, since there are counts less than 5, we use Fisher’s Exact significance level to test the
hypothesis (i.e., 0.096) which is greater than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and there
is no significant relationship between brand preference and brand awareness for Lenovo.
 21

Hence, after analysis of all of the individual brand awareness and brand preferences of the
respondents, none of the brand awareness had any significant relationship with the brand
preference.

Table 18. Preferred brand * Gender

Crosstab
Gender Code
Total
Male Female

Count 9 9 18
Acer
% within Preferred_Brand 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

Count 13 1 14
Apple
% within Preferred_Brand 92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

Count 19 19 38
Preferred_Brand Dell
% within Preferred_Brand 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

Count 9 7 16
HP
% within Preferred_Brand 56.3% 43.8% 100.0%

Count 12 4 16
Others
% within Preferred_Brand 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Count 62 40 102
Total
% within Preferred_Brand 60.8% 39.2% 100.0%
Table 18 explains the detail break down of the preferred brands as per gender. Total of 18
respondents chose Acer as the preferred brand, 14 respondents chose Apple, 38 chose Dell,
16 Chose HP and 16 chose other brands laptops as their preferred brand. Acer brand was
chosen equally by both male and females. Amongst 14 respondents who chose Apple brand,
92.9% were male and 7.1% were female. Likewise Dell brand was equally preferred by male
and female. Amongst 16 respondents who chose HP brand, 56.3% were male and 43.8% were
female.

Table 18.1. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 10.268a 4 .036 .035

Likelihood Ratio 11.857 4 .018 .023

Fisher's Exact Test 10.741 .028
Here, since there are counts less than 5, Fisher’s Exact significance level of 0.028 is less than
0.05. Hence, we reject null hypothesis concluding that there is significant relationship
between brand preference and gender.
 22

Table 19. Preferred brand * Age group

Crosstab
Age
Total
18-27 28-37 38-46

Count 14 3 1 18
Acer
% within
77.8% 16.7% 5.6% 100.0%
Preferred_Brand

Count 10 2 2 14
Apple
% within
71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0%
Preferred_Brand

Count 32 6 0 38
Preferred_Brand Dell
% within
84.2% 15.8% .0% 100.0%
Preferred_Brand

Count 15 1 0 16
HP % within
93.8% 6.3% .0% 100.0%
Preferred_Brand
Count 11 5 0 16
Others % within
68.8% 31.3% .0% 100.0%
Preferred_Brand

Count 82 17 3 102
Total
% within
80.4% 16.7% 2.9% 100.0%
Preferred_Brand
Table 19 interprets brand preferences as per age group. The study includes data from 3 age
group category only i.e, 18-27, 28-37 and 38-46. Amongst 18 respondents who chose Acer
brand as their preferred brand, 77,8% belonged to 18-27 age group, 16.7% belonged to 28-37
age group and 5.6% belonged to 38-46 age group. Amongst 14 respondents who chose Apple
as their preferred brand, 71.4% respondents were from 18-27 age group, 14.3% were from
28-37 age group and 14.3% were from 38-46 age group. Amongst 38 respondents who
preferred Dell brand, 84.2% were from 18-27 years old and 15.8% were from 28-37 years
old. Amongst 16 respondents who preferred HP brand, 93.8% were from 18-27 years age
group and 6.3% were from 28-37 years age group.

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 12.601a 8 .126 .111

Likelihood Ratio 11.502 8 .175 .218

Fisher's Exact Test 9.487 .193

 23

Here, since there are counts less than 5, Fisher’s Exact significance level of 0.193 which is
greater than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis concluding that there is no significant
relationship between brand preference and age group.

Table 20. Preferred brand * Occupation

Crosstab
Occupation
Self- Total
Business Service Student Others
Employed

Count 0 1 8 8 1 18
Acer
% within 100.0
.0% 5.6% 44.4% 44.4% 5.6%
Preferred_Brand %
Count 0 3 5 5 1 14
Apple % within 100.0
.0% 21.4% 35.7% 35.7% 7.1%
Preferred_Brand %
Count 1 4 19 11 3 38
Preferred_ Dell
Brand % within 100.0
2.6% 10.5% 50.0% 28.9% 7.9%
Preferred_Brand %

Count 2 4 7 2 1 16
HP
% within 100.0
12.5% 25.0% 43.8% 12.5% 6.3%
Preferred_Brand %

Count 1 1 9 4 1 16
Others
% within 100.0
6.3% 6.3% 56.3% 25.0% 6.3%
Preferred_Brand %

Count 4 13 48 30 7 102
Total
% within 100.0
3.9% 12.7% 47.1% 29.4% 6.9%
Preferred_Brand %
Table 20 interprets brand preference with occupation of the respondents. Out of 18
respondents who preferred Acer brand laptops, 44.4% were from Service and another 44.4%
respondents were students. Out of 14 respondents who preferred Apple brand, 35.7%
respondents belonged to Service and Student profession respectively. 21.4% respondents
were self employed. Out of 38 respondents who preferred Dell brand, 50% of respondents
were engaged in service industry whereas 28.9% respondents were students. Out of 16
respondents who preferred HP brand, 43.8% respondents were from service industry whereas
25% respondents were self-employed.
 24

Table 20.1. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 12.923a 16 .678

Likelihood Ratio 13.082 16 .667

Fisher's Exact Test 11.968

Here, since there are counts less than 5, Fisher’s Exact significance level of 0.830 which is
greater than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis concluding that there is no significant
relationship between brand preference and occupation.

Gender has significant relationship with brand preference. Whereas, other demographic
factors like age, occupation does not have significant relationship with brand preference. One
of the probability for such result here could be due to larger groups in occupation and age
than that of Gender which has teared the data in multiple categories and hence the
significance level is affected.

Table 21. Factors affecting purchasing behavior of laptop

Brand Tech Repair Easy

Availability Price Durability
Name Spec Maintenance availability

Valid 102 102 102 102 102 102 102

N
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.82 4.24 4.10 4.35 4.05 4.37 4.01
Mode 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .999 .811 1.029 .863 1.028 .954 1.130

Here, 7 factors considered to affect the purchasing behavior of laptop were verified with the
respondents where all of the 7 factors scored above 3. On the likert scale of 1~5, 1 was
strongly disagreeing on the factor affecting the purchasing decision of laptop whereas 5 was
strongly agreeing on the factor affecting the purchasing decision. 3 was the neutral score. As
reflected in the table above, 6 out of 7 variables scored above 4 on an average indicating that
these factors does affects in purchasing decision of laptop by the consumers. Durability
scored 4.37 and hence it is the most important factor amongst others while a consumer makes
a purchase. Likewise, Technical specification and Price are the second and third factor that
affects purchasing decision of consumers (Figure 3~9) .
 25

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The research paper was primarily intended to cater the partial fulfillment requirement of the
business research methodology course. But, in the course of learning, this research paper has
enlightened the factors that affects in purchasing behavior of laptops by different consumers
in the local market. With the exponential booming technology that people are continuously
being bombarded with, studies of the market to understand the market demand and factors
affecting purchasing behavior of consumers is very essential.

Interesting findings of the research paper was, consumer’s purchasing decisions are least
affected by price at present. Durability of the laptop that they purchase is the deciding factor
for purchasing any laptop. Apple brand is perceived as the most desired brand of electronic
gadget in the market. The same is the perceived for laptop. But, due to various reasons, Apple
was not preferred by the consumers in the research paper. The reasons could be complex
compatibility of software of Apple and people’s habit of widely using Microsoft packages.
Price could also be another factor for not preferring apple as a brand for purchasing laptop.

Significant relationship with demographic factors and brand preference is almost null in the
research paper. The reason for this could be huge dispersion of data from small sample size.
The research was solely dedicated as an academic research paper and hence the limitations
like time and scope of the study was limited with the primary objective. For these reasons, the
chi-square tests done to identify the relationship of brand preference with various
demographic factors showed no relation almost at every test except Gender where only 2
within variables were tested.

The followings are the findings of the research.

 Dell was the most preferred brand in current market scenario.

 Even though Apple brand is highly perceived as the desired brand in electronic
products, the research paper concluded that at present, Apple’s preference has came to
4th place followed by Dell, Acer and HP.
 MSI and Benq brand oflaptops are very less known to the consumers.
 Consumers would be willing to pay Rs. 62,235.29 on an average while purchasing a
laptop. Even then maximum numbers of respondents said Rs. 50,000 is the ideal price
that they would want to pay.
 Apple was scored best amongst other 7 brands of popular laptops available in the
market at present. Apple was followed by Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, Sony and
Samsung.
 Laptop brand preference is not affected by the brand awareness.
 Laptop brand preference is affected by Gender.
 Laptop brand preference is unaffected by other demographic factors like age,
occupation.
 26

 All of the 7 factors used in the research, (Availability, Price, Brand Name, Technical
Specification, Repair and Maintenance facilities, Durability, Easy availability of spare
parts) were determining factors for purchasing behavior of laptop by consumers
where durability was the most important factor followed by technical specification
and price.
 Consumer’s purchasing behavior for laptop is least affected by price compared to
Durability and technical specification.
 27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=pressreleaseviewer&a0=5489)
Zajonc and Markus 1982).
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11138
(Bagozzi 1991; Kotler 1994; McCarthy and Perreault 1987
Johnson and Puto 1987; Lefkoff-Hagius and Mason 1993
Huber, et al. 1993; Zajonc and Markus 1982).
Costley and Brucks 1992
Zajonc and Markus 1982
Fishbein and Ajzen 1980; Sujan 1985
Zajonc and Markus 1982). Going back to the work of Fechner (1876), Maslow (1937), and
Zajonc (1968), itself (Janiszewski 1993; Matlin 1971). Matlin (1971)
(Aaker et al. 1992)
(Greenwald and Leavitt 1984; Ray 1973).
Batra and Ray 1983; Bloch, Sherrel and Ridgway 1986; Gardner, Mitchell and Russo 1985;
Mitchell 1979; Ray 1979; Aaker, Batra and Myers 1992).
(Park and Srinivasan 1994
Batra and Ray 1983; Gardner, Mitchell and Russo 1985; Schiffman and Kanuk 1991; Aaker,
Batra and Myers 1992
Hawkins and Hoch 1992; Kassarjian 1978; Olshavsky and Granbois 1979
 28

APPENDICES

Table 1. Gender

Cumulative
Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Male 62 60.8 60.8 60.8
Female 40 39.2 39.2 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0

Table 2 Age

Cumulative
Age Group Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
18-27 82 80.4 80.4 80.4
28-37 17 16.7 16.7 97.1
39-46 3 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0

Table 3 Permanent Address

Percen Valid Cumulative

Permanent address Frequency
t Percent Percent
Inside Kathmandu
68 66.7 66.7 66.7
Valley
Outside Kathmandu
34 33.3 33.3 100.0
Valley
Total 102 100.0 100.0

Table 4 Preferred brand

Valid Cumulative
Brand Name Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Acer 18 17.6 17.6 17.6
Apple 14 13.7 13.7 31.4
Dell 38 37.3 37.3 68.6
HP 16 15.7 15.7 84.3
Others 16 15.7 15.7 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
 29

Table 5 Brand Awareness

Valid Cumulative
Brand Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Yes 62 60.8 60.8 60.8
Acer No 40 39.2 39.2 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Yes 52 51.0 51.0 51.0
Sony No 50 49.0 49.0 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Yes 25 24.5 24.5 24.5
MSI No 77 75.5 75.5 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Yes 77 75.5 75.5 75.5
Dell No 25 24.5 24.5 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Yes 59 57.8 57.8 57.8
Apple No 43 42.2 42.2 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Yes 22 21.6 21.6 21.6
Benq No 80 78.4 78.4 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Yes 47 46.1 46.1 46.1
Samsung No 55 53.9 53.9 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Yes 59 57.8 57.8 57.8
HP No 43 42.2 42.2 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Yes 57 55.9 55.9 55.9
Lenovo No 45 44.1 44.1 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
Yes 12 11.8 11.8 11.8
Others No 90 88.2 88.2 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0
 30

Table 6 Willingness to spend on laptop

N Valid 102
Missing 0
Mean 62235.29
Mode 50000
Std. Deviation 21420.901
Minimum 30000
Maximum 150000

Table 7 Occupation

Valid Cumulative
Occupation Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Business 4 3.9 3.9 3.9
Self-Employed 13 12.7 12.7 16.7
Service 48 47.1 47.1 63.7
Valid
Student 30 29.4 29.4 93.1
Others 7 6.9 6.9 100.0
Total 102 100.0 100.0

Table 8 Brand Scoring

Statistics
Acer Sony MSI Dell Apple BenQ Samsung HP Lenovo
N Valid 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 2.72 2.75 3.18 2.68 1.91 3.21 2.77 2.62 2.69
Mode 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3
Std. Deviation .969 .826 .825 1.026 1.203 .825 .819 .975 1.005
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
 31

Fig. 3 Availability

Fig. 4 Price
 32

Fig 5. Brand Name

Fig 6. Technical Specification

 33

Fig. 7. Repair and Maintainance

Fig. 8 Durability
 34

Fig 9. Easy Availability

 35

QUESTIONNAIRE

I am Anish Baidya, student of MBAe at Ace Institute of Management. I am doing this survey
as a partial fulfillment for the Business Research Methodology course. I guarantee the
information generated through the questionnaire would be solely used for academic purpose
and won’t be disclosed on an individual basis. I would be thankful if you would fill the
following questionnaire:

Section A: Socio-Demography of respondent

Age Family main Permanent
Gender Education background
occupation address

1. Below 18 1. Management 1. Inside

2. 18-27 2. Science and 1. Agriculture Kathm
3. 28-37 technology 2. Businessperson andu
4. 38-46 3. Humanity 3. Self-employed Valley
1. Male
5. 47 and 4. Engineering and 4. Service 2. Outsid
2. Female
above IT 5. Others e
5. Others (Please Specify) Kathm
6. (Please Specify) ……………….. andu
…………………… Valley

Section B: Brand Awareness

Q1. Which laptop brands are you aware of?
1. Acer
2. Sony
3. MSI
4. Apple
5. Benq
6. Samsung
7. HP
8. Lenovo
9. Others (Please Specify)

Q2. How much rupees (in average) would you spend to purchase a laptop?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Q3. Which is your preferred brand?................
 36

Q4. Which laptop brands have you used till date?

1. Acer
2. Sony
3. MSI
4. Apple
5. Benq
6. Samsung
7. HP
8. Lenovo
9. Others (Please Specify)

Q5. Please rank the laptop brands on your brand perception or past experiences.
1. Acer
2. Sony
3. MSI
4. Apple
5. Benq
6. Samsung
7. HP
8. Lenovo
9. Others (Please Specify)

Section C: Factors that could affect purchasing behavior of consumers

Q6. Please tick the below in order of importance
Would the following factors affect Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
in purchasing laptop? Disagree Agree
Availability
Price
Brand
Technical Specifications
Repair and Maintenance services
Durability
Easy availability of spare parts

THANK YOU