WARID TELECOM IN PESHAWAR

By Fazli Haq A Synopsis submitted to the NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Sciences in Management Sciences (MS-MS) Approved by: ________________ Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Gul Lecturer Supervisor

_______________ Mr. Jafar Ali Lecturer ________________ Mr. Arif Khan Lecturer ________________ Prof. Dr. Farman Ali ________________ Prof. Dr. Munir Khan Khattak ________________ Prof. Dr. Farhat Ullah Studies

Member

Member

Director, IBMS/CS

Dean FRSS

Director Advanced & Research

INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES/ COMPUTER SCIENCES (IBMS/CS) NWFP, AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY PESHAWAR 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 General
Background of the Study Statement of Problem Research Objectives Scope of Research Limitation of Research Significance of Research LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: 2.1 2.2 2.3

General Meaning of Competitive Advantage Distinctive Competency

CHAPTER 3: 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Introduction

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection Methods Population and Sample Research Procedure Descriptive Analysis

LITRATERE CITED ANNEXURE I QUESTIONNARIE

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 1.1 General The Characteristics common to telecoms development in every Asia Pacific country are diversity and growth, coupled with continuous change and reform. Asia Pacific is the worlds fastest growing region with a large and unsatisfied demand for telecoms networks and services, ranging from the most basic to the sophisticated. Some 148m lines are planned across the region by 2000 at an average cost of US $1500 a line (Crane, 1995). While every country plans substantial telephone line growth, the markets of the Asia Pacific region have been characterized as falling into three broad divisions. The first consists of the developed nations, principally Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. These countries do not need external investment to create new infrastructure. They are chiefly concerned with privatizing state-owned monopolies and introducing new competition to improve efficiency and reduce prices. The second division includes countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand, which have already instituted reforms and whose telecoms provision is to some extent matched by their economic activity. What they need is not finance from abroad so much as expertise to help develop their networks and then use them properly. Some have ambitions in multimedia, for example which are not justified by their economic development. Third are the developing economies of China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan, where the telecoms infrastructure is not sufficiently developed to sustain the growth of industrial activity. (Crane,1995). One of the major questions in strategic management is to what extent firms should be consistent in their strategy and structure. Intuitively, flexibility and speed seem like necessary conditions for competitive advantage (Eisenhardt and Brown, 1998).

1.2

Background of the Study

Warid Telecom is backed by The Abu Dhabi group, one of the largest groups in the Middle East. The group is led by Shaikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan who is also 3

Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research United Arab Emirates. Warid Telecom currently providing GSM cellular services in Pakistan and Bangladesh with headquarters located at Abu Dhabi UAE. Warid Telecom started its operation in April 2005 from Pakistan. In Pakistan Warid Telecom use uses the codes 0321 and 0322 preceded with the code number of Pakistan 0092. Warid Telecom purchased a license of Telecom Operator in 2004 from Government of Pakistan and launched the service covering 28 cities of Pakistan with a total population of around 32 million people. In July 2006 and increasing its coverage 110 cities town highways. Warid Telecom also holds licenses to operate Long Distance International (LDI) and Wireless Local Loop (WLL) businesses in Pakistan. Currently Warid Telecom has 7 million customers in Pakistan. (Warid Telecom (Pakistan), Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) 1.3 Statement of Problem

In todays marketplace increasing number of firms increased rivalry among firms in industry. If value creating strategies apply there will be more potential for firm to gain competitive advantages. Proper knowledge about the marketing strategies and its customers will insure a firm to gain market share in telecom industry. If customers want to purchase new service then they will consider whether to repurchase the same brand or purchase the new one. They may look for the services which include quality, low cost and satisfaction. 1.4 Research Objectives The purpose of the study is to examine competitive advantages of the Warid Telecom Company working in Peshawar, in this context its objectives are: To state and analyze the competitive advantages of Warid Telecom. To state and analyze marketing strategies of Warid Telecom. 1.5 Scope of Research The research will focus on respondents who will mobile phones users. The research will provide sufficient information about Warid Telecom usage, acquisition and brand preferences to Warid Telecom customers, to know the effects of Warid telecom on

customers life change, the opinion of those who had availed the opportunity and to analyze how much the company gain competitive advantages. 1.6 Limitation of Research It is to confess that the study attempts only those aspects, which are closely relevant to the purpose of the study. A limitation from which the study will suffer is the non-availability of information in a manner required for analysis and the secrecy of the companies data. Most of the professionals were conscious about the quality of work of the organization. Sometimes, their views may be biased, with intent to create a better image of the organization. There is very limited number of Franchises available, due to which limited numbers of professionals may be consulted. If there any opportunity avail to consult a large number of professionals with diversity, the results of this research study will enjoy more external validity. 1.7 Significance of Research The research will be conducted for better understanding of those factors dependable for competitive advantage and marketing strategies. Further this study will be helpful in reviewing and describing how competitive advantages are gain. Furthermore, the research will be helpful for customer in understanding, adoption and use of specific brand. The stakeholders at all the ends will be benefited to understand and make use of the information for any prospective strategy development.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction

The terminology used in the field of Strategic Management that might possibly garner the prize for the most overworked and least understood catch-phrase is "competitive advantage." The extension of that phrase into "sustainable competitive advantage" is currently an elaboration of ambiguity. A search for usage of the phrase easily turns up numerous titles of articles and books, a number of which predate the widely successful usage of the phrase by Michael Porter in his book Competitive Advantage (1985). Since the appearance of the Porter book, the phrase has spread throughout management, marketing, economic, and human resource publications and served as a component of the titles of many "how to do it." books (e.g., Tweed, 1990) directed at a variety of business activities. Yet, in spite of the vast acceptance of this phrase, there are few attempts to clearly state what competitive advantage actually is, and this appears to be regardless of whether its use is in research or practitioner-oriented publications. Prior to Porter's use of the competitive advantage terminology in 1985, typical references to competitive advantage used the term without explicit definition. For example, Spence (1984) and Caves (1984) both use the terminology in the titles of their articles but leave the definition of the terminology unaddressed. There is, however, an awareness in their articles of the relative competitive positions of firms within industries. Their perspectives are also heavily reliant upon the viewpoint that asserts that an industry's structure is the determinant of the firms' performances within the industry. Consequently, Caves focuses on the commitment of resources to establish entry barriers that would enhance the performance of a firm, and Spence focuses on the use of subsidies and restrictions by governments to give their domestic firms protection from foreign competitors. Apparently, competitive advantages in this sort of definitional framework are linked to the inhibition of competition or the absence of competitors. One marketing text by Day (1984) discusses how to determine the value of a competitive advantage in the market by relating it to benefits which must be perceived by a customer group that is willing to pay for those benefits and cannot easily obtain those benefits elsewhere. The text also refers to the sources for advantages in the market as superior skills and resources, and links those sources to the ability of a business to either do more of something or do something better than is possible by its competitors. So in contrast to the previously cited usage of competitive advantage terminology by Caves and Spence, this conception of competitive advantage appears to be linked to a firm's being more competent in the market than its competitors. This view of competency as being a source of competitive advantage is echoed in the later work of Reed and DeFillippi (1990), who assert that causal ambiguities concerning the source of competencies within a firm can lead to sustainable advantages for a firm. 6

They build their arguments from the foundation laid by Hofer and Schendel (1978), who predate even Spence (1984) and Caves (1984) in using the terminology and relate competitive advantage to a firm's unique position as compared to its competitors, which is arrived at through its patterns of resource deployments. In Reed and DeFillippi's argument the end result of developing an advantage based on competencies, whether its causes are ambiguous or explicit, is superior financial performance. The explicit assertion by Porter (1985) was that competitive advantage comes from the value that firms create for their customers that exceeds the cost of producing that value. The key concern for a business is to capture that value which is greater than its cost. Additionally, he identified two types of competitive advantage, which were cost leadership and differentiation. The source of above-average performance of a firm in the long run is a result of sustainable competitive advantage, and the three generic strategies which he suggests leads to above-average performance are cost leadership, differentiation, and focus. That is all well, but the meaning of competitive advantage is left unaddressed in a direct manner. In fact, the reader may become convinced that the meaning of competitive advantage is simply a given assumption or a piece of common knowledge. Coyne (1986) suggested that because the meaning of competitive advantage is superficially self-evident, there is no apparent need to define its exact meaning. However, he went on to say that differentiation based on key buying attributes of a product is the foundation of an advantage. Three conditions that he suggests must be met for competitive advantage to have meaning are: 1) that customers perceive differences between one firm's product/service attributes and those of its competitors, 2) the difference is the result of a capability gap between the firm and its competitors, and 3) that the aforementioned difference in attributes and the capability gap are expected to endure over time. The sustainability of such a competitive advantage is seen by Coyne as being a function of the durability of the attributional difference and the capability gap which created it. An additional note is that in Coyne's framework, a sustainable competitive advantage is not necessarily associated with increasing shareholder wealth, only with beating competitors. Therefore, a competitive advantage might actually lead to a decrease in shareholder wealth if pursued and sustained. 2.2 Meaning of Competitive Advantage The most explicit attempt to define competitive advantage and sustainable competitive advantage has come from Barney (1991). He states, "a firm is said to have a competitive advantage when it is implementing a value-creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitors. A firm is said to have a sustained competitive advantage when it is implementing a value-creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitors and when these other firms are unable to duplicate the benefits of this strategy" (p. 102). He additionally asserts that "a competitive advantage is sustained only if it continues to exist after efforts to duplicate that advantage have ceased" (p. 102).

This definitional base from Barney is useful because it addresses some of the ambiguity that is apparent in previously mentioned usage of the competitive advantage terminology. It incorporates the idea that creation of value, competition among firms, and the durability of that value are all fundamental to the conceptualization of competitive advantages and their sustainability. However, it does not explicitly link competitive advantages to the resulting financial performance of a firm. While this perspective is reminiscent of Coyne's (1986) assertion that a competitive advantage may actually decrease shareholder wealth if pursued, it abandons what was once a crucial supposition of authors such as Reed and DeFillippi (1990) or Porter (1985) that superior or aboveaverage financial performance is linked to competitive advantages. In an earlier work, Barney (1986) addressed the issue of whether or not an organization's culture could be a competitive advantage that would result in superior financial performance. Therefore, one wonders why the later definition of competitive advantage given by Barney does not include financial performance in its scope. In addition to the lack of reference to financial performance, this definition by Barney does not take into account strategies which seek to limit the value-creating strategies of competitors or the prevention of the incarnation of potential competitors (Caves, 1984; Spence, 1984). While one might not want to think that such strategies based upon the limitation of competition rather than the implementation of value-creating competencies are typical of the market environment, it is naive not to include the possibility of their existence into the definitional framework of competitive advantages. If one turns to the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language and peruses the alternative definitions of the word "advantage," the references to gain, superiority, success, profit, and benefits are plentiful. The entry for the word "competition" prominently includes the phrases "struggle or rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc." and "a contest for some prize, honor, or advantage." Similarly, "competitive" is defined as "of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition." Consequently, if one decomposes the term "competitive advantage" into its underlying meanings, one would be tempted to state that it meant "a superiority, benefit, or profit that is decided by means of a contest, struggle, or rivalry." Such a definition of competitive advantage leaves open the issue of the legality of the form of the competitive advantage and does not differentiate between a competitive advantage gained through the greater capabilities of one firm over its competitors or the imposition of restrictions upon the capabilities of the firm's existing or potential competitors. What this definition does include is an explicit reference to a contest which results in an achieved goal consisting of some form of superior reward, be it financial or non-financial in nature. To speak only of the implementation of value-creating strategies when defining competitive advantage not only ignores the possibility of limiting competition to gain a competitive advantage, it also does not address the issue of whether the firm is creating more value than its competitors through the use of the strategy. For example, suppose firms A and B are both engaged in the production and maintenance of software for small businesses to use in their accounting procedures. Suppose that they compete directly for customers, have a fixed number of customers to which they can sell, have equally priced 8

products, and currently each sells to 50% of the customer base. Finally, the net profits of each firm are equal. In fact, let us suppose that the only difference between the firms would be in the formats of the reports printed through the use of the software. In this case, one would be hard-pressed to state that either firm could be said to have an advantage over the other firm. However, under the definition provided by Barney, one could state that since each firm has managed to implement a strategy that has created value for its respective customer base that is not simultaneously being implemented by the other firm, then each firm has indeed created a competitive advantage. Of course, this is an extreme simplification of the problem, but the core of the matter remains a viable point of discussion. A creation of value that does not result in some form of perceived gain, profit, or superiority over one's competitor is not really an advantage. It is simply a difference. Perhaps such value should be more appropriately called a "competitive difference." Keeping the same two hypothetical firms in mind, consider the possibility that firm A has managed to curry the favor of a key figure in the government who has the power to dictate that all small businesses must conform to the reporting style that is currently implemented through the use of firm A's software. Consequently, that mandate is issued to the public and suddenly firm B is without any customers. In this case, firm A has not created value, but it has captured the value that firm B previously controlled. Once again, the case is extreme in its assumptions, but again, the reality of the world is that restrictions can be placed on the competitive environment, and legality is not a precondition of such restrictions. Firm A has managed to achieve a substantial gain over its competitor without creating value. In fact, if firm B's former customers actually considered firm A's product to be inferior to firm B's product, then firm A would have removed value from the market. The issue of sustainability is also problematic in the Barney definition. A link is made in the definition between sustainability and the inability of competitors to duplicate the benefits that result from the strategy which led to the competitive advantage. In essence, this tacitly acknowledges the fact that if the benefits of a firm are matched by the benefits earned by its competitors, then an advantage has not been achieved. However, the added wrinkle of sustainability was attached to the conceptualization. Returning to the original suppositions about firms A and B, then one could say under the Barney definition that both firms did indeed have competitive advantages with their 50% market shares and equal profits, but they simply did not have sustainable competitive advantages. Perhaps this point is too fine to be truly useful The further assertion of Barney that "competitive advantage is sustained only if it continues to exist after efforts to duplicate that advantage have ceased" is also flawed. If an advantage remains viable while efforts to duplicate the advantage continue, then that advantage is indeed being sustained in spite of those efforts. Frankly, if a firm enjoys an advantage that is constantly withstanding the attempted onslaughts of duplication, it surely would consider itself fortunate. Furthermore, once all attempts at duplication ceased, there would be no guarantee that the future would not bring more, and perhaps 9

successful, attempts at duplication or even alternate strategies that would capture its value without duplication. Barney's definition seems to imply that sustainable competitive advantages could be ascertained only if the capability existed to know that all attempts to diminish and remove competitive advantages have ceased forever. However, at this point in time, omniscience is not readily apparent in the field of strategic management research. What this discussion has led to is the awareness that the terminology of "competitive advantage" has actually masked several concepts that are aligned in practice and research. First, there are "competitive differences" among firms in a market that arise because firms deploy resources in different manners and have differing capabilities. These competitive differences may or may not create additional value, or may actually decrease value. The amount of value that may be created is dependent upon the reaction of the market to the competitive difference. Second, there may be "competitive restrictions" placed upon competitors in a market. The restrictions simply limit the amount of competition that can be offered by the competitors in the market. These could be legal or illegal restrictions, and they are not necessarily related to value in any particular way. Third, competitive differences and competitive restrictions may or may not lead to competitive advantages. Competitive advantages are gains, benefits, or profits that accrue to a firm through the process of competition. A definition of what a particular firm considers to be a gain or benefit is not addressed in this conceptualization of a competitive advantage because firms' criteria of what constitutes a positive outcome may vary. For example, market shares, accounting rates of return, and stock value changes are all possible measures of outcomes. Although not typical, the number of employees or the capture of a particular market segment could be considered the criteria upon which to judge positive and negative outcomes. The point to be made is that if a firm considers itself to have gained in some manner through a particular mode of competitive activity, then that firm would consider itself to have a competitive advantage. An extreme example in which the firm desired its own dissolution might be excludable from the scope of this definition because survival could be argued for as a necessary condition for any advantage to have been achieved. Fourth, the issue of whether a competitive advantage is sustainable or not is a potentially misleading line of thought. Barney's definition equates sustainable competitive advantages with the permanence of those advantages. Given the potential vagaries of an unknowable future, there is no "permanent competitive advantage" that is ascertainable. There are, however, "temporary competitive advantages" which last varying amounts of time, dependent upon the maintenance of the advantage, the ability of competitors to duplicate the advantage, or the ability of competitors to somehow obtain the benefits of the advantage. If the use of short-term or long-term is appropriate in the field of business research and practice, one wonders why those terms have not been applied to competitive advantages. One could easily speak of short-term competitive advantages which would last through a business cycle and long-term competitive advantages which would last over more than one business cycle. If there were a competitive advantage which was or had the potential of being sustained over the entire length of the foreseeable future, then one could label that as an "unthreatened competitive advantage." 10

Perhaps, in the end, one should fall back upon other terms common in economic and strategic management literatures to convey some of the concepts that have been accumulated within the muddy water of the competitive advantage terminology. For instance, Hill and Jones (1998) specifically limit their textbook definition of competitive advantage to mean that a firm has gained an above-average return as compared to its competitors in its industry. They further assert that a sustained competitive advantage is simply a competitive advantage that has been maintained for a number of years. In regard to a sustained competitive advantage, one may wonder what that undefined number of years is, as referred to by Hill and Jones, but the limited and precise definition of what a competitive advantage is within the Hill and Jones' usage is refreshing. Furthermore, the precision of the definition would encourage the adjectival usage of the "short-term" and "long-term" concepts to describe competitive advantage. 2.3 Distinctive Competency

Distinctive competency is defined fairly uniformly in management literature and textbooks. For example, both the Hill and Jones (1998) and Thompson and Strickland (1999) textbooks for strategic management agree on the distinctive competency definition as centering around the uniqueness and comparative performance of something arising within an organization in the light of the organization's competitors' efforts. The concerns previously discussed regarding the confusing definitional usage of the competitive advantage terminology by Hofer and Schendel (1978), Day (1984), Porter (1985), Coyne (1986), Reed and DeFillippi (1990), and Barney (1991) can be alleviated by taking the authors' various foci upon capabilities, differentiation efforts, resources and perceptions of value creation and subsuming them with the term of distinctive competency. Then one can state that a distinctive competency of some kind may lead to a competitive advantage. One can then remove the idea that restrictions and subsidies upon the competitive capabilities and efforts of firms is a part of the competitive advantage definition, as exemplified by Caves (1984) and Spence (1984), by referring to non-market influences upon competitive behavior. Influences that arise via governmental action, societal phenomena, and any other factors that are beyond the realm of a firm's conduct of business activities can reasonably be designated as non-market in nature. Consequently, the issue of value creation and/or subtraction from the market developing from nonmarket influences does not conflict with nor detract from the competitive advantage definition based upon above average returns. Instead, one may state that non-market influences have the potential to lead to a competitive advantage for a firm. Finally, one is able to use the economic definition of comparative advantage to remove the aspects of efficiency and opportunity costs from the competitive advantage concept. Comparative advantage is commonly used in economic texts to denote conditions in which one entity has the ability to produce a good or service with more efficiency than can other entities, based upon lower opportunity costs of production (for example, see Miller, Benjamin and North's (1999) discussion of comparative advantage). The cost leadership principles delineated by Porter (1985) and to some degree the concerns about 11

relative value creation expressed in the work of Barney (1991) can be placed within the comparative advantage concept, thus leaving the concept of competitive advantage more uncluttered. One may state that a firm with a comparative advantage in producing valuable goods and/or services may be able to achieve a competitive advantage.

12

CHPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction This chapter will introduces determination of sample size, data collection procedure and statistical technique used for data analysis. The detail procedures which will be adopted to reach the final conclusions are explained below. 3.2 Data collection Methods The study will utilize both primary and secondary data and information from different sources including Warid Telecom Company, Text books, magazines, journals and websites about different variables of the study. The study will use various data collection methods including Interviews, observation and questionnaires. 3.3 Variable of the study:
Competitive Advantages is the result of Strategic Management of Mobile Communication Services, Such that more effective is the Strategic Management the higher the competitive advantages & voce versa. In the formula it may be stated as under: CA. f(SM), Where CA = Competitive Advantages

SM = Strategic Management 3.4 Population and sample size selection

This research will be a survey research, conducted to clarify and define the nature of a problem. This research will use questionnaires for finding the information obtained from the respondents in the sampling unit. The target population for the research will be limited to respondents in Peshawar University, Agricultural University, Forest Bazar and my own village Palosi Maghdarzai. Twenty-five (25) respondents will be randomly selected from each stratum and questionnaires will be personally administrated to 100 respondents, so, the sample of the study will 100 respondents.

1.5 Research Procedure Sample survey method will be used for this research technique. Survey technique is defined as a research technique in which information is gathered from
13

people by use of questionnaire. The questionnaire will gather the primary data and recorded people responses for analysis. A method of data collection based on communication with a representative sample of the target population (Zikmund, 1997). The way a survey is conducted depends on its objective. Survey research is the research in which we use a questionnaire to obtain facts, opinions and attitudes of the respondents (McDaniel and Gates, 1999). Survey questions can obtain inquiry about the subject that is exclusively internal to the respondents which is appropriate for consumers attitudes. 3.7 Data Analysis SPSS for windows will be applied in the process of data input and analysis. Descriptive statistics will be utilized and analyzing the results.

14

ANNEXTURE I QUESTIONNAIRE Competitive Advantage of Warid Telecom Date ____________ Time______________ Respondent Name:__________________________ Occupation_____________________ Phone No. ____________________________ E-mail ____________________________ Address ________________________________________________________________ Age of respondent in years: a. 20-30 b. 30-40 years c. 40-50 years d. 50 plus Education Level: a. 10 years b.12 years c. 14 years d. 16 years e. Above 16 Years
Please encircle a number in which your response is most suitable. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Currently its era of mobile communication. You prefer quality over price when using mobile cell. Warid Telecom Company provides good mobile services than others companies service. You use company packages due to brand popularity You use company packages due to Low Price You use company packages due to wide area coverage You use company packages due to Easy availability 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Warid Telecom signals is better than other companies You will purchase the packages if its 1 2 3 4 5 card not nearly/easily available. Advertisement of the company make you to purchase the said Brands package The advertisement of the company is better than other mobile company You satisfied from the network coverage of the company You satisfied from the tariff rate of the company packages provides to its customers International call rates is lower of the company packages You satisfied from the following value added services: i. MMS ii. SMS iii. Voice Massage iv.Black barey iv. Online shopping and internet Company regularly change packages and services for customers satisfaction Network coverage development is going good

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15

18. 19. 20. 21.

Price of the company packages is lower and affordable You satisfied the value added service i.e. i. Easy Load ii. Balance Sharing iii. Warid telecom doing good business in Peshawar

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

16

1.

Which company service you are availing? a. Warid b. Mobilink c. Both d. Others ______________________________ 2. What type of mix (package) you are using? a. Post Paid b. Prepaid c. Both 3. What type of package you are using in desired mix?

Warid Post Paid i. Zahi 150 ii. 500 iii. 1000 iv. 1500 v. 2500 vi. Zahi Unlimited Zahi Zahi Zahi Zahi

Warid prepaid Mobilink postpaid i. Zem 1 i. Indigo second ii. iii. iv. Zem 30 second Zem 60 second Zem 321 countdown ii. Indigo Freedom Plan 1 iii. Indigo Freedom Plan 2 vi. Indigo Freedom Plan 3 v. Indigo Freedom Plan +3 vi. Indigo Freedom Plan 4

Mobilink prepaid i.. Jazz Budget ii. Jazz Easy iii. Jazz Ladies First iv. Jazz Octane

4. Why you are using the company/package over other? a. Because of Brand Popularity b. Because of Low price c. Because of Easy availability d. Because of wide coverage of areas. 5. Are you satisfied with quality and tariff rate of your desired company products & service? i. Yes ii. No 17

6. How much you satisfied from the said company products and service? i. iv. 5% 30% ii. v. 10% 40% iii. vi 20% 50%

Any other ________ 7. Are satisfied with continuous improvement level of your desired company/package. a. Yes b. No 8. If the availability near is not available then still you will be loyal to prescribe package/company? a. Yes b. No 9. Which company you think is doing better business in Peshawar? a. Waridtelecom b. Mobilink 10. Are you often suggesting of your desired connection/package to others? a. Yes b. No 11. Are you satisfied from the international call rate/charges of your desired connection/package? a. Yes b. No 13. What types of satisfaction you are availing from your desired company/package? i. iv. vi. 14. i. iv. 5% 30% MMS Quality Balance Sharing Power Tools How much you like the said mobile company Advertisement/commercials? ii. v. 10% 40% iii. vi 20% 50% ii. v. SMS iii. Voice Massaging Online shopping & surfing (GPRS).

Any other __________ 18

15.

Further your suggestion for improvement of services and advertising etc about the said company will be more precious for us. Please use back side for suggestions if any.

19