Sie sind auf Seite 1von 31

A

Report
On

Study the consumer choice of Nokia


handset over competitive mobile
phone brand

By
Anjana Chorasia
Neha Sharma
Rahul Gupta
Sanjay Saraogi

Prof K.K.Morya
1| Page
A
Report
On
Study the consumer choice of Nokia
handset over competitive mobile
phone brand
For
Prof K.K.Morya
(Faculty IBS Jaipur)
By
Anjana Chorasia
Neha Sharma
Rahul Gupta
Sanjay Saraogi
19th January 2009
2| Page
The Report forms a part of our
course curriculum in Business
Research Method.
Our Respected Business Research
Method Faculty Prof K.K.Morya has
authorized the making of the Report

3| Page
Acknowledgement

It is always said that we need “two hands to clap” and it


proved exactly the same. One hand was ours and other
was provided by none other than Prof. K.K.Morya who
served us as a mentor and also lifted our moral up in the
whole process. He took pain and helped us in overcoming
the hurdles of our path. Along with sir we would like to
give our special thanks to individuals who devoted their
precious time on our live project and helped us by filling
the questionnaire. In short words this project is one
among those which will live in our hearts, as the project
made us come across various facts of life and may be time
will also fail in diluting it from us as all together

4| Page
Table of content
Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................5
Project title-................................................................................................................5
Name of the company-...................................................................................................5
Objective.................................................................................................................6
Methodology followed..................................................................................................6
List of illustration............................................................................................................6
Introduction...................................................................................................................8
Purpose of the report.....................................................................................................8
Methods of collecting data and their sources-.......................................................................8
Background information................................................................................................8
HISTORY OF NOKIA.................................................................................................9
Pie chart study..............................................................................................................12
Mobile brand.........................................................................................................12
Price Range..............................................................................................................12
Service Centre......................................................................................................14
Battery..................................................................................................................15
Price.......................................................................................................................16
Accessories...........................................................................................................16
Features................................................................................................................17
Descriptive Analysis.................................................................................................18
Correlation Matrix....................................................................................................20
KMO and Bartlett’s test............................................................................................22
Communality.........................................................................................................22
Communality estimates;..................................................................................23
Total variance explained..........................................................................................23
Component matrix...................................................................................................24
5| Page
Component transformation matrix...........................................................................27

Executive Summary
Project title-
To study the customer choice of Nokia handset over competitive mobile brand.

Name of the company-


NOKIA

Objective
To conduct a survey this will show us the result of the consumer preference of
mobile handset especially regarding Nokia
To use SPSS and applying factor analysis to find out the mean, correlation matrix,
inverse of correlation matrix, KMO and Bartletts test, communalities, total
variance explained, component matrix, rotated component matrix and component
transformation.
Apart from this the scope includes the study of pie chart.

Methodology followed
• Preparation of questioner.
• Making people to fill the questioner
• Filling of data in SPSS
• Factor analysis on SPSS
• Preparation of graph
• Preparation of report

6| Page
List of illustration
S.N Item Page No
1 Chart 1 12
2 Chart 2 13
3 Chart 3 14
4 Chart 4 15
5 Chart 5 16
6 Chart 6 17
7 Chart 7 18
8 Table 1 19
9 Table 2 21
10 Table 3 22
11 Table 4 23
12 Table 5 24
13 Table 6 26
14 Table 7 26
15 Table 8 27

7| Page
Introduction
Purpose of the report
To Study the consumer choice of Nokia handset over competitive mobile phone
brand.

Methods of collecting data and their sources-


Preparation of questioner and making people to fill and the working on SPSS
Sources of collecting data –
• Classmates
• Family
• Relatives
• Market
• Road
• Restaurant

Background information
After deciding upon the topic we prepared the questioner and it was filled by the
people and then factor analysis was done with the help of SPSS software

8| Page
HISTORY OF NOKIA
Nokia is a Finnish multinational communications corporation, headquartered in
Keilaniemi Espoo, a city neighbouring Finland's capital Helsinki. Nokia is focused
on wireless and wired telecommunications, with 112,262 employees in 120
countries, sales in more than 150 countries and global annual revenue of 51.1
billion euros and operating profit of 8.0 billion as of 2007.[t is the world's largest
manufacturer of mobile telephones: its global device marketsharewas about 38%
in Q3 of 2008, down from 39% in Q3 2007 and down from 40% sequentially
Nokia produces mobile phones for every major market segment and protocol,
including GSM CDMA, and W-CDMA (UMTS. Nokia's subsidiary Nokia
Siemens Networks produces telecommunications network equipments, solutions
and services.
Nokia has sites for research and development manufacture and sales in many
continents throughout the world. As of March 2008, Nokia had R&D centers in 10
countries and employed 30,415 people in research and development, representing
approximately 27% of Nokia’s total workforce The Nokia Research Center,
founded in 1986, is Nokia's industrial research unit of about 800 researchers,
engineers and scientists. It has sites in seven countries: Finland, Denmark,
Germany, China, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. Besides its NRCs, in
2001 Nokia founded (and owns) Indy– Nokia Institute of Technology, a R&D
institute located in Brazil Nokia's production facilities are located at Espoo, Oulu
and Salo Finland; Manaus, Brazil; Beijing, Dongguan and Suzhou, China; Fleet
England; Komárom Hungary; Chennai India; Reynosa , Mexico; Jucu , Romania
and Masan South Korea.Nokia's Design Department remains in Salo, Finland.
Nokia plays a very large role in the economy of Finland: it is by far the largest
Finnish company accounting for about a third of the market capitalization of the
Helsinki Stock Exchange (OMX Helsinki) as of 2007; a unique situation for an
industrialized country It is an important employer in Finland and several small
companies have grown into large ones as Nokia's subcontractors Nokia increased
Finland's GDP by more than 1.5% in 1999 alone. In 2004 Nokia's share of the
Finland's GDP was 3.5% and accounted for almost a quarter of Finland's exports
9| Page
in 2003. In 2006, Nokia generated revenue that for the first time exceeded the state
budget of Finland.
Finns haveranked Nokia many times as the best Finnish brand and employer. The
Nokia brand valued at $35.9 billion, is listed as the fifth most valuable global
brand in Inter brand Business Weeks Best Global Brands list of 2008 (first non-US
company) It is the number one brand in Asia (as of 2007) and Europe (as of 2008)
the 23rd most admirable company worldwide in Fortune’s World's Most Admired
Companies list of 2008 (tied with Exxon Mobil; second in Network
Communications, fifth non-US company), and is the world's 88th largest company
in Fortune Global 500 list of 2008, up from 119 of the previous year As of 2008,
AMR Research ranks Nokia's global supply chain number two in the world .

Chairman Jorma Ollila,


b. 1950

Chairman of the Board of Directors, Nokia Corporation.

10 | P a g e
Georg Ehrnrooth, b. 1940 Lalita
gupte b.1948

Dr. Bengt Holmström,b. 1949 Prof. Dr. Henning Kagermann,


b. 1947

Olli-Pekka Kallasvuob. 1953 Per Karlsson, b. 1955

11 | P a g e
Dame Marjorie Scardino, b. 1947 Risto Siilasmaa, b. 1966

Keijo Suila, b. 1945

Pie chart study


Mobile brand

12 | P a g e
Chart 1

Here we can see that maximum people prefer Nokia handset over other handset

Price Range

13 | P a g e
Chart 2
Here also we see that maximum people want to choose handset that lies in the
range of Rs 2500 and Rs 6000 and we can also infer that people preferring low
range phone is very less low range phone include phone costing less that Rs 2500.

14 | P a g e
Service Centre

Chart 3

Here we can see that maximum area is covered by average and


another opinion is good that also cover an area equal to average

15 | P a g e
Battery

Chart4

Here we can that in case of battery most of the people said that the battery quality
of Nokia is average and similarly there were lots of people who said that it is best
and many also said that it is good and very less number of people said that it is bad
and those who said that it is worst is very less in number.

16 | P a g e
Price

Chart 5

Here also we can see that most of the people said that it is best
and average and the number who said that it good is also quite
large in number.
Accessories

17 | P a g e
Chart 6

Here we can infer that maximum people says that the accessories provided by
Nokia is good where as a huge amount of people also says that it is average and
many says it is best.

18 | P a g e
Features

Chart 7

Here we can see that out of the total sample maximum people said that the features
of Nokia handset is good and huge amount of people also said that it is good and
also many said it is average.

19 | P a g e
Descriptive Analysis

Table 1
Mobile brand- Mean of 1.47 signifies that out of the total
sample, maximum people preferred Nokia Handset where as the
standard deviation is 0.502 . By analyzing the mean and standard
deviation we can see that nearly 60% people preferred Nokia and
standard deviation is .502 that means there are chances the
people can shift to other brands.
Price range- Mean of 2.22 signifies that out of the total sample
size o 100, maximum people said that they purchase Phone
within the price range of Rs 2500 – 6000. The standard deviation
is .675 which means that even this will not effect and the
preference will remain the same that is the price range of Rs
2500 – 6000.

20 | P a g e
Goodwill- Mean of 4.02 means that out of the total sample
selected the mean signifies that the goodwill of Nokia is good and
they also prefer Nokia because of the goodwill and the standard
deviation is 1.054 which means that their preference changes a
lot in case of goodwill.
Quality- Mean of 3.90 signifies that out of the total sample size
most of the people say that the quality is more than average
where as the standard deviation is .959 which means most of
them also says that the quality is good there is a lot of variation
in their preference and the weight age of quality is not much
important it is Average.
Features- Mean of 3.77 signifies that out of total sample size
most of the people say that features of Nokia is good and the
effect of features is important to some extend while choosing any
mobile brand and we can see that the standard deviation is 1.053
which means that there is wide variation in case of this
parameter that is features.
Service Centre- Mean of 3.39 signifies that people had rated the
service centre of Nokia as Average which means that it is neither
good nor bad and their preference while choosing any Nokia
handset is not based on the service centre available the standard
deviation in case of service centre is 1.109 which means apart
from people who says that the service centre of Nokia is average
there are also many people who says that it is good and some
also says that it is bad.
Battery- Mean of 3.70 in case of battery signifies that people has
rated the battery quality of Nokia as average and while choosing
any Nokia handset battery is not as important feature that effect
21 | P a g e
their purchase decision. Here we can also see that the standard
deviation is 1.109 that means there decision varies a lot.
Accessories- Mean of 3.47 signifies that accessories do not
effect much while purchasing any Nokia Handset and according
to people the accessories provided by them is not best neither it
is worst, they have rated it as good. The standard deviation is
1.176 which mean the variation is much high.
Price- Mean of 3.96, which is near to 4 signifies that people say
that the price of Nokia Hand set is average whereas the standard
deviation of .974 signifies that out of the total sample there are
lots of people who says that the price of Nokia hand set is Good
and price is a very important factor that people take into
consideration while selecting any Nokia handset.

22 | P a g e
Correlation Matrix

Table 2
Here we can see that the correlation matrix between mobile
brand and other factors like price range, quality, goodwill, etc
have negative correlation but in case of correlation between
mobile brand and price is positive with .080 which is also
insignificance.
Correlation between price range with mobile brand and price is
negative whereas it is positive in other case like goodwill, quality,
features, service centre, battery and accessories. The maximum
is in case of price range and features that is .527
Correlation between goodwill with mobile brand and price is
negative whereas it is positive in other case like quality, features,
service centre, battery and accessories. The maximum is in case
of goodwill and quality that is .722
23 | P a g e
Correlation between quality and mobile brand is negative
whereas is maximum in other case like goodwill, features, service
centre, battery, etc and the maximum is in case of goodwill that
is .722
Correlation of features is maximum in case of accessories that
are .594 because in most case features are mostly added when
we add new accessories.
Here we can see that the correlation between features with other
parameter is less that .5 with all parameter that means the
correlation is very less with features.
The correlation between service centre and other parameter is
also very less that is less than .5 that means the effect of service
centre do not affect or is not affected by other parameter
The correlation of battery is maximum with goodwill that is .504
and with other variables it is less than .5 and in case of mobile
brand is it is negative. So we can say that there is some effect of
battery on other parameter but to some extend it is related to
goodwill of the brand.
The correlation of accessories is near to.5 in case of quality that
is .499 and is more than .5 that is .594 with its features and in
rest of the cases it is less than .5
The correlation of price with is less than .5 in most of the case
that means that the price of the mobile brand does not affect
other parameter but it is the only parameter that effect the
mobile brand selection.

24 | P a g e
KMO and Bartlett’s test

Table 3

Communality
The communalities, below, measure the percent of variance in a
given variable explained by all the factors. That is, the
communality is the squared multiple correlation for the variable
using the factors as predictors. Communality for a variable is the
sum of squared factor loadings for that variable (row), and thus is
the percent of variance in a given variable explained by all the
factors. For full orthogonal PCA, the communality will be 1.0 and
all of the variance in the variables will be explained by all of the
factors, which will be as many as there are variables. In the
communalities chart, SPSS labels this column the "initial"
communalities. The "extracted" communalities is the percent of
variance in a given variable explained by the factors which are
extracted, which will usually be fewer than all the possible
factors, resulting in coefficients less than 1.0.

25 | P a g e
Table 4
The proportion of a variable's variance explained by a factor
structure. A variable's commonality must be estimated prior to
performing a factor analysis. Communality does not have to be
estimated prior to performing a principal component analysis.
Communality is denoted by h2.
Communality estimates;
Estimates of the proportion of common variance in a variable.
Prior communality estimates are those which are estimated prior
to the factor analysis. Common methods of prior communality
estimation are to use (1) an independent reliability estimate, (2)
the squared multiple correlation between each variable and the
other variables, (3) the highest off-diagonal correlation for each
variable, or (4) iterate by performing a sequence of factor
analyses using the final communality estimates from one analysis
as prior communality estimates for the next analysis. Final
communality estimates are the sum of squared loadings for a
variable in an orthogonal factor matrix.

26 | P a g e
The extraction is maximum in case of communalities is with
goodwill that is .817 and with features it is .787 and apart from it
is with price range that is .761

Total variance explained


The "Total Variance Explained" table below shows the
eigenvalues, which are the proportion of total variance in all the
variables which is accounted for by that factor. A factor's
eigenvalue may be computed as the sum of its squared factor
loadings for all the variables. A factor's eigenvalue divided by the
number of variables (which equals the sum of variances because
the variance of a standardized variable equals 1) is the percent of
variance in all the variables which it explains. The ratio of
eigenvalues is the ratio of explanatory importance of the factors
with respect to the variables. If a factor has a low eigenvalue,
then it is contributing little to the explanation of variances in the
variables and may be ignored as redundant with more important
factors. The table shows 18 factors, one for each variable.
However, only the first six are extracted for analysis because,
under the Extraction options, SPSS was told to extract only
factors with eigen values of 1.0 or higher.

27 | P a g e
Table 5
In the particular study we have taken 9 variables and after proper
calculation SPSS have recognized three factors. The total of these
the factors are 3.589, 1.363 and 1.263 with% of variance
as39.979, 15.150 and 14.030 and the total adds up to 69.169
that is more than .5 which signifies that the total sample size
taken is appropriate it is neither less so the sample size taken is
good in the sense that there will be no difficulties regarding this
case.

Component matrix

The "Component Matrix," below, gives the factor loadings. This is


the central output for factor analysis. The factor loadings, also
called component loadings in PCA, are the correlation coefficients
between the variables (rows) and factors (columns). Factor
loadings are the basis for imputing a label to the different factors.
28 | P a g e
Loadings above .6 are usually considered "high" and those
below .4 are "low." Note that the phone variables were coded so
that high values correspondent to disliking that type of phone.
Therefore a positive loading corresponds to disliking that type of
phone, and a negative loading to liking.
The first table below gives the unrotated solution and the second
the rotated solution. Normally the rotated solution will be
significantly easier to interpret (indeed, often the researcher will
not ask for the unrotated matrix, but we requested it here for
instructional purposes).
Looking at the rotated matrix, the first factor has high loadings
from six music variables: classical, classical(3), opera, Nokia
handset, and had moderate loading on big bands. Because these
six music items sort on the same factor, this is a justification for
combining these items in a scale which might be called "general
handset appreciation scale." Naming the factor is a matter of
subjectivity and dispute in many cases.

29 | P a g e
Table 6

Table 7
In this component matrix table all the parameter score has been
estimated with all the factor component and from each
component the parameter with the maximum score is selected to
form a factor in each case. In our study goodwill, quality and
accessories with a score of .791, .843 and .745 respectively have
been added in the first component where as in the second
component we have mobile brand and price with a score of .617
and .660 and in case of component 3 we have service centre,
features, price.

30 | P a g e
Component transformation matrix
The "Component Transformation Matrix" below indicates the
correlation of the factors before and after rotation.

Table 8

Here we can see that we have 3 component in total and the


correlation of the factor 1 is .756, .665 and -.036.
Correlation of factor 2 is -.300, -.383 and .873
Correlation of factor 3 is .595, -.641 and -.036

31 | P a g e

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen