Sie sind auf Seite 1von 133

The University of Southampton

2010/11
Faculty of Business & Law

School of Management


MSc Dissertation


The Role of Customer Perceived Value
in Designing a Holistic Customer Experience:
An Analysis of Customer Value-in-Experience in
Turkish Mobile Telecom Market

24381063
Inanc ENGIN
ie1g10@soton.ac.uk
inancengin@gmail.com





Presented for MSc in Marketing Management




This project is entirely the original work of student registration number
24381063. Where material is obtained from published or unpublished
works, this has been fully acknowledged by citation in the main text
and inclusion in the list of references.
Word Count: 15185






















The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer so well the
product or service fits him and sells itself.
Peter Ferdinand Drucker

























Abstract

The perception of value is essential to the loyalty of customers, and is
therefore of significant importance to companies. Recent focus on the
customer experience has led to the recognition that value is something
perceived by customers rather than sold by companies. This dissertation
focuses on the customer perception of value over the entire course of the
customer experience, or value-in-experience in Turkish mobile telecom
market.

The research approach adopted in this dissertation includes interpretivist
research philosophy and the inductive research approach as it targets to form
general principles on the market by using a particular set of facts, which are
obtained from a questionnaire study conducted in the dissertation. The study
investigated the value perceptions of 251 individuals aged between 18-55
living in different cities of Turkey. The findings from this research provide
evidence that customers demographic characteristics such as age, education,
gender and monthly mobile telecom spending are closely associated with their
mobile telecom service preferences and value-in-experience perceptions. The
findings of the research also revealed the answers of prevalent conflicts
among mobile telecom marketing practitioners such as service quality vs.
service price and coverage strength vs. cheap offerings.

Findings and implications of this research can be used in crafting value
propositions, fine-tuning offerings to increase value whilst removing
unnecessary costs, engaging with customers in more rewarding relationships,
designing campaigns and choosing proper marketing channels by mobile
telecom marketing practitioners working in the Turkish market. On the other
hand, it is recommended that a more elaborate exploratory study on value-in-
experience should be applied to a larger sample group, which reflects better
the characteristics of the actual customer base in the market.

Keywords: holistic customer experience, customer experience, customer value,
value-in-experience, mobile telecom

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, marketing
management programme director, James Seligman, for the support, guidance
and wisdom he showed throughout the year I spent in the UK.

Besides I would like to thank to my family and friends for their endless support
and infinite love.



























Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
2. Turkish Mobile Telecom Market ................................................................ 3
2.1. Market Overview and the Position of the Market in Europe ........... 3
2.1.1.MarketHistoryandKeyPlayersintheMarket...............................................3
2.1.2.NumberofSubscribersandPenetrationRate.................................................4
2.1.3.FixedandMobileTelecommunicationsTrafficShares................................5
2.1.4.MobilePenetrationRatesinSomeEuropeanCountries.............................5
2.1.5.SubscriptionTypeRatiosinSomeEuropeanCountries..............................6
2.1.6.2G&3GSubscriberRatiosinSomeEuropeanCountries............................7
2.1.7.AverageMoUsinSomeEuropeanCountries....................................................7
2.2. Key Marketing Metrics of Turkish Mobile Operators (TMOs) ....... 8
2.3. Financial Overview of TMOs ............................................................... 8
2.3.1.RevenueItems...............................................................................................................8
2.3.2.NetSalesRevenue........................................................................................................9
2.3.3.NetProfits........................................................................................................................9
2.3.4.YearlyInvestments...................................................................................................10
2.3.5.FinancialIndicators..................................................................................................11
2.4. Strengths and Weaknesses of Turkish Mobile Telecom Industry .. 12
2.4.1.Strengths.......................................................................................................................12
2.4.2.Weaknesses.................................................................................................................12
2.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 13
3. Literature Review ...................................................................................... 14
3.1. Customer Experience (CE) ................................................................ 14
3.1.1.WhatisMeantbyCustomerExperience?.......................................................14
3.1.2.EvolutionofCE...........................................................................................................15
3.1.3.CEComponents..........................................................................................................17
3.2. Customer Value ................................................................................... 18
3.2.1.WhatisMeantbyCustomerValue?...................................................................18
3.2.2.AReviewofValueModels.....................................................................................19
3.2.3.Co-creationofValue.................................................................................................19
3.2.4.RelativityofValueandEmotionsandCE........................................................22
3.2.5.ValueAnalysis:WhatDoCustomersValue?..............................................24
3.3. Holistic Customer Experience (HCE) ............................................... 26
3.3.1.WhatisMeantbytheTermHolistic?............................................................26
3.3.2.HCEStages:Wheredoesitstart,wheredoesitend?.............................28
3.3.3.RoleofPerceivedValueinDesigningaHCE..................................................29
4. Research ...................................................................................................... 33
4.1. Objectives ............................................................................................. 33
4.2. Approach .............................................................................................. 34
4.3. Methodology ........................................................................................ 35
4.4. Data Collection .................................................................................... 37
4.4.1.SurveyDesign.............................................................................................................37
4.4.2.Sampling........................................................................................................................38
4.4.3.PilotStudy....................................................................................................................38
4.5. Data Quality ......................................................................................... 39
4.5.1.ProfilesofRespondents..........................................................................................39
4.5.2.LimitationsoftheResearch..................................................................................41
4.6. Analysis and Discussion of Findings ................................................. 41

4.6.1.Section-1:Pre-experiencePhaseoftheHCE.................................................43
4.6.2.Section-2:Product/ServiceExperiencePhaseoftheHCE......................50
4.6.3.Section-3:Post-ExperiencePhaseoftheHCE...............................................69
5. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 74
6. Reference List ............................................................................................. 76
7. Appendices .................................................................................................. 88
7.1. Appendix-I ........................................................................................... 88
7.2. Appendix-II .......................................................................................... 93
7.3. Appendix-III ........................................................................................ 94
7.4. Appendix-IV ........................................................................................ 95
7.5. Appendix-V .......................................................................................... 96
7.6. Appendix-VI ........................................................................................ 97
7.7. Appendix-VII ....................................................................................... 98
7.8. Appendix-VIII ................................................................................... 102
7.9. Appendix-IX ...................................................................................... 103
7.10. Appendix-X ...................................................................................... 108
































Table of Figures

Figure 21:Logos of licenced mobile telecom operators in Turkey .................. 3
Figure 22:Number of subscribers & penetration rate ...................................... 4
Figure 23:Fixed and mobile telecommunications traffic shares ...................... 5
Figure 24:Mobile penetration rates in some European countries .................... 6
Figure 25:Subscription type ratios in some European countries ...................... 6
Figure 26: 2G & 3G subscriber ratios in some European countries ................ 7
Figure 27: Monthly average MoUs in some European countries .................... 8
Figure 28: Revenue items of TMOs ................................................................. 9
Figure 29: Net sales revenues of TMOs ........................................................... 9
Figure 210: Net profits of TMOs ................................................................... 10
Figure 211: Yearly investments of TMOs ..................................................... 11
Figure 212: ROCE and EBIT Margins of TMOs ........................................... 11
Figure 31: Palmers (2010) evolution of the dominant basis. ........................ 16
Figure 32: A framework for value co-creation .............................................. 21
Figure 33: The DART Model ........................................................................ 22
Figure 34: The customers holistic experience .............................................. 27
Figure 35: The customers holistic experience-2 ........................................... 27
Figure 41: Chosen components of Research Onionfor this study .............. 34
Figure 42: Respondents demographic characteristics ................................... 39
Figure 43: Age group distributions of respondents ........................................ 40
Figure 44: Gender distributions of respondents ............................................. 40
Figure 45: Education level distributions of respondents ................................ 40
Figure 46: Spending distributions of respondents .......................................... 40
Figure 47: Conversion of into numerical expressions ................................... 42
Figure 48: Q1 and its sub-questions ............................................................... 43
Figure 49: Overall agreement scores of sub-questions of Q1 ........................ 43
Figure 410: Agreement scores of Q1 distributed to age groups .................... 44
Figure 411: Agreement scores of Q1 distributed to gender ........................... 44
Figure 412: Agreement scores of Q1 distributed to education level .............. 45
Figure 413: Agreement scores of Q1 distributed to monthly spending ......... 45
Figure 414: Q2 and its sub-questions ............................................................. 46
Figure 415: Overall agreement scores of sub-questions of Q2 ...................... 46
Figure 416: Agreement scores of Q2 distributed to age groups .................... 47
Figure 417: Agreement scores of Q2 distributed to gender ........................... 48
Figure 418: Agreement scores of Q2 distributed to education level .............. 48
Figure 419: Agreement scores of Q2 distributed to monthly spending ......... 49
Figure 420: Q3, Q3.1 answer options and Q3.1 response analysis ................ 50
Figure 421: Q3.2 answer options and Q3.2 response analysis ....................... 51
Figure 422: Q3.3 answer options and Q3.3 response analysis ....................... 52
Figure 423: Q3.4 answer options and Q3.4 response analysis ....................... 53
Figure 424: Q3.5 answer options and Q3.5 response analysis ....................... 54
Figure 425: Q3.6 answer options and Q3.6 response analysis ....................... 55
Figure 426: Q3.7 answer options and Q3.7 response analysis ....................... 56
Figure 427: Q3.8 answer options and Q3.8 response analysis ....................... 57
Figure 428: Q3.9 answer options and Q3.9 response analysis ....................... 58
Figure 429: Q3.10 answer options and Q3.10 response analysis ................... 59
Figure 430: Q3.11 answer options and Q3.11 response analysis ................... 60
Figure 431: Q4, Q4 answer options and Q4 overall agreement scores .......... 61

Figure 432: Q4 response analysis for age groups .......................................... 63
Figure 433: Q4 response analysis for gender ................................................. 64
Figure 434: Q4 response analysis for education level ................................... 64
Figure 435: Q4 response analysis for monthly spending ............................... 65
Figure 436: Q5 and its overall agreement scores ........................................... 66
Figure 437: Agreement scores of Q5 distributed to age groups .................... 66
Figure 438: Agreement scores of Q5 distributed to gender ........................... 67
Figure 439: Agreement scores of Q5 distributed to education level .............. 67
Figure 440: Agreement scores of Q5 distributed to monthly spending ......... 68
Figure 441: Q6 and its response analysis ....................................................... 69
Figure 442: Q7 and its response analysis ....................................................... 70
Figure 443: Q8, its sub-questions and overall agreement scores ................... 71
Figure 444: Agreement scores of Q8 distributed to age groups .................... 72
Figure 445: Agreement scores of Q8 distributed to gender ........................... 72
Figure 446: Agreement scores of Q8 distributed to education level .............. 73
Figure 447: Agreement scores of Q8 distributed to monthly spending ......... 73
Figure 71: Number of subscribers of TMOs .................................................. 88
Figure 72: Subscriber shares of TMOs .......................................................... 89
Figure 73: Traffic shares of TMOs ................................................................ 89
Figure 74: Revenue shares of TMOs ............................................................. 90
Figure 75: Churn rates of TMOs .................................................................... 91
Figure 76: MoUs of TMOs ............................................................................ 91
Figure 77: Average ARPUs of TMOs ........................................................... 92
Figure 78: Prepaid ARPUs of TMOs ............................................................. 92
Figure 79: Post-paid ARPUs of TMOs .......................................................... 92
Figure 710: Customer value in exchange ..................................................... 100
Figure 711: Customer value build-up .......................................................... 100
Figure 712: Customer value dynamics ......................................................... 101
Figure 713: Cascading the three complimentary models of CV .................. 101
















1
1. Introduction
Customers, not marketers, decide whether value has been created by a
product or service (Turnbull, 2009 p2). A new mobile phone or a new mobile
line does not contain value; value is only realised by customers if they able to
use those products and services in a satisfactory way. In this sense, the old-
fashioned view that the value is realised through the exchange process is being
challenged by new perspectives such as holistic customer experience and
value-in-experience.

Mobile technologies, which are leaded by mobile telecom, seem to dominate
our daily lives in future as they do today. In many developed and developing
countries mobile penetration rates are en route to reach peak levels and that
those markets are becoming more competitive in terms of marketing and
finance. Hence, mobile operators that develop a better understanding of
customer experience and value-in-experience may develop a significant
competitive advantage.

Turkish mobile telecom market is such a market that a fierce competition is in
place. Therefore, it is expected Turkish mobile operators to focus on providing
excellent experiences to their customers through their marketing strategies.
However, in extant marketing literature, although many authors have
investigated customer experience and customer value concepts, no one has
applied those understandings to mobile telecom sector with a value-in-
experience approach. In this sense, this research study encompasses all phases
of customer experience spanning from the pre-experience to post-experience
rather than merely focusing on product and service experience.

Basically, the main objective of this study is to find the answer of what do
customers value in different phases of the holistic customer experience
provided by Turkish mobile operators? through a questionnaire study, and
that this study fills a significant gap in the literature on customer experience
2
and customer value as it empirically investigates the customer value across the
stages of the holistic customer experience.

This dissertation consists of 3 main sections, which are an overview of
Turkish mobile telecom market, literature review and the research. In the first
section some general information about the industry and the market is given
with numbers and figures; in the second section, the extant literature on
customer value, customer experience and their interrelationship is summarized
in order to provide basis for the research; and in the last section, information
on how the research was designed and findings of the research are given and
discussed.

This research adopts the interpretivist research philosophy and the inductive
research approach as it targets to form general principles about the Turkish
mobile telecom market by using a particular set of facts, which are obtained
from the questionnaire study. Considering that, in analysis section of the
research the author has used his judgement and practical knowledge in
interpreting the results of the study as he has previous work experience in
Turkish mobile telecom industry as a marketer.





















3
2. Turkish Mobile Telecom Market
2.1. Market Overview and the Position of the Market in Europe
2.1.1. Market History and Key Players in the Market
The history of mobile telecom in Turkey starts with Turkcell and Telsim
companies, which both have been founded in 1994 and authorized by the
government to provide mobile telecom service to Turkish people. Afterwards,
2 more service providers, Aria and Aycell have been founded and entered the
market through license bidding that held in 2000 by the regulating government
agency Telecommunications Board which has changed its name to
Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) later on.
In 2004, Aycell and Aria merged with the name of Avea and through a block
sale held in 2006, Telsim has been sold to Vodafone Group. As of 2011, 3
GSM service providers operating in Turkish Mobile Telecom market are
Avea, Turkcell and Vodafone (See Figure 21) (UCCET, 2009).


Figure 21: As of 2011, logos of licenced mobile telecom operators in Turkey
Regulating body ICTA has leaded two major transformations in the industry.
First, the Mobile Number Portability (MNP) which allowed subscribers to
transfer their mobile numbers without any prefix change, was launched in
2008. Second, through the 3G bidding held by ICTA, which was one of the
largest biddings in Turkeys history, all mobile telecom operators obtained 3G
licenses by paying nearly 2 billions of TL license fee in total (As of May 2011,
1 TR Lira~ 0.63 US $). MNP helped the industry to create a fair competitive
environment for mobile operators whereas 3G launch has provided customers
a faster mobile communication service. Both of these transformations have
helped the industry and mobile operators to enhance the overall quality and the
maturity of the market.

4
However, although nearly 99.9% of the population is covered by operators
GSM network, the market still has not reached its mature stage as it is still
growing both in terms of total number of subscribers and mobile penetration
rate. On the other hand, it is needed that many other regulations to be
implemented in order to reach to the maturity level of the mobile telecom
markets of EU member countries.

Turkish mobile telecom market is an appealing market with the countrys
young population and strong network coverage (Deloitte, 2010).
2.1.2. Number of Subscribers and Penetration Rate
Since the foundation of first mobile operators in Turkey, the market has
showed a great development both in terms of total number of subscribers and
mobile penetration rate. In first 10 years, between 1994 and 2004, total
number of mobile subscribers has reached to 35 millions whereas the
population of Turkey was 65 millions. Between 2004 and 2008, with the aid of
global economic and technological trends, market has reached to its peak
penetration rate to date 92.1%, and a total number of subscribers of 65.8
millions. According to 2010 Q4 data, there are approximately 62 millions
mobile subscribers with a penetration rate of 85.1% in the market (See Figure
22) and the total population of Turkey is 74 millions (TSI, 2011).


Figure 22:Number of subscribers & penetration rate (ICTA, 2011)
However, since the launch of MNP, there has been a growing interest on
having a single mobile number as having multiple mobile numbers from
34.7
43.6
52.7
62
65.8
55.7
52.9
50.1
45.3
42.4
7.1
8.7
11.4 16.6
19.4
49.0
60.4
74.7
87.9
92.1
86.5
84.9 84.8 85.3 85.1
!"!#$
%!"!#$
&!"!#$
'!"!#$
(!"!#$
)!"!#$
*!"!#$
+!"!#$
,!"!#$
-!"!#$
%!!"!#$
!$
%!$
&!$
'!$
(!$
)!$
*!$
+!$
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010-C1 2010-C2 2010-C3 2010-C4
M
o
b
|
|
e

e
n
e
t
r
a
n
o
n

k
a
t
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

5
u
b
s
c
r
|
b
e
r
s

(
|
n

m
|
|
|
|
o
n
s
)

2G 5ubscr|bers 3G 5ubscr|bers Mob||e enetranon
5
different providers in order to benefit from economic on-net offerings became
unnecessary. As a result of this, penetration rate dropped and finally stabilized
around 85%. According to mobile operators, main reason of such a drop seems
to be the cancellation of excess mobile lines. Nevertheless, although the
penetration rate has showed a decrease since the launch of MNP, it is expected
that it will increase significantly in following years as new regulatory
adjustments made(ICTA, 2011).
2.1.3. Fixed and Mobile Telecommunications Traffic Shares
Considering the whole telecom market in Turkey (mobile and fixed together),
total share of mobile telecom, in terms of generated traffic, has moved to 84%
in 2010 from 24% in 2004. In other words, today, 84% of the whole
communication traffic generated by Turkish people is being made via mobile
service providers. This rate is expected to increase with a relatively slower
pace in following years. In a word, the mobile telco market will strongly
continue to dominate the whole telecom industry in Turkey in the following
years by increasing its share in total communication traffic (See Figure 23).


Figure 23:Fixed and mobile telecommunications traffic shares (ICTA, 2011)
2.1.4. Mobile Penetration Rates in Some European Countries
Mobile penetration rate is a term generally used to describe the number of
active mobile phone numbers within a specific population. In Europe, Finland,
Italy, Germany and the UK have the highest mobile penetration rates whereas
EU average is 126%(See Figure 24). With a penetration rate of 85%, Turkey
!"#$%
$&#$%
'(#)%
*&#&%
&'#+%
)"(#!%
)!*#(%
,*#!%
*$#)%
$(#*%
$$#!%
!(#(%
!$#+%
!$#,%
!'-%
')-%
*,-%
,$-%
&!-%
(!-%
('-%
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!"#
)!"#
*!"#
+!"#
,!"#
!#
%!#
'!#
)!#
+!#
$!!#
$%!#
$'!#
$)!#
%!!'# %!!(# %!!)# %!!*# %!!+# %!!,# %!$!#
-
%
.
/
%
0
.
1
2
3
4
%
5
6
7
8
9
%
2
:
%
5
.
;
7
3
%
5
6
7
8
9
%
5
6
7
8
9
%
<
2
=
4
%
>
?
2
:
@
;
4
A
%
2
:
%
1
2
3
3
2
.
:
A
B
%
0.1234% C2D4E% -%./%0.1234%2:%5.;73%
6
promises significant increase in its mobile penetration rate in following years.
According to Deloitte (2010) mobile penetration rate in Turkey will be 113%
in 2014.


Figure 24:Mobile penetration rates in some European countries (ICTA, 2011)
2.1.5. Subscription Type Ratios in Some European Countries
In a mobile telecom market, the higher the post-paid subscription rate, the
healthier the revenue generating system of mobile operators. Considering
European countries, Finland, Austria, France, Denmark and Spain have the
highest post-paid subscription rate whereas EU average is 49%. With a 31% of
post-paid subscription rate, Turkey shows a relatively weak post-paid
subscriber base. However, between 2009 Q1 and 2010 Q4 post-paid
subscription rates of Turkish mobile operators increased by 9% (ICTA, 2011)
and is expected to increase more in following years (See Figure 25).


Figure 25:Subscription type ratios in some European countries (ICTA, 2011)
!"#$%
!&'$%
!()$%
!)*$%
!)#$%
!!*$%
!!"$%
*+$%
*&$%
'"$%
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!!"#
($!"#
(%!"#
(&!"#
('!"#
,
-
.
/
0
.
1
%
2
3
0
/
4
%
5
6
7
8
0
.
4
%
9
:
%
;
9
%
<
=
>
%
2
7
6
/
0
.
1
%
?
6
/
>
-
@
8
%
A
B
7
C
0
4
%
,
7
0
.
D
6
%
E
@
7
F
6
4
%
!"#$
%&#$
'(#$ '(#$
'&#$
)!#$ )(#$
)'#$
)*#$
+*#$
+&#$
*%#$
&%#$
"#$
*!#$
+*#$ +*#$
+!#$
"&#$ "*#$
")#$
"!#$
'!#$
'!#$
%+#$
(+#$
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!"#
)!"#
*!"#
+!"#
,!"#
$!!"#
,-./0.1$ 23456-0$ ,60.78$ 98.:06;$ <=0-.$ >?$2@A$ B8/A-3:$ C86:0.D$ ?E$ F68/0.1$ G36;8D$ C68878$ F50/D$
#$HI$JH45=0-1$<3K476-=LH.$ #$HI$J68=0-1$<3K476-=LH.$
7
2.1.6. 2G &3G Subscriber Ratios in Some European Countries
Despite 3G was enabled only 3 years ago in Turkey (July 2009), the ratio of
3G-user subscribers is higher than the EU average (See Figure 26). This high
ratio indicates that the market adopts new and improved technologies rapidly.
On the other hand it also shows that mobile operators performed well on
adapting their infrastructure and offerings to 3G in a short period and that it
resulted in success in 3G-user activation.


Figure 26: 2G & 3G subscriber ratios in some European countries (ICTA, 2011)
2.1.7. Average MoUs (Minutes of Usage) in Some European Countries
Minutes of Usage(MoU) is a term generally used to measure mobile phone
usage level and defined as the average voice call duration of an average
subscriber in a month. Turkey is in the 3
rd
place with a MoU of 225.3 minutes
after France and Ireland among European countries (See Figure 27). One
possible explanation of this is that mobile operators offer good value voice
tariffs and other voice services and another one is the interest of Turkish
people to talk via mobile phones rather than via fixed lines.

!"#$
%&#$ %"#$
'%#$
'&#$ '(#$ &)#$ &)#$ &*#$
&+#$
&&#$
"!#$
(,#$
&!#$
+,#$ +!#$
,%#$
,,#$ ,*#$ ,)#$ ,)#$ !(#$
!'#$
!,#$
*"#$
&#$
!"#
$!"#
%!"#
&!"#
'!"#
(!"#
)!"#
*!"#
+!"#
,!"#
$!!"#
-./01/2$ 341./$ 56789.1$ :810;$ <=$ >69?@;$ A<$5BC$ :9@01/2$ -91/D@$ E@/F19?$ G@9F1/;$ G9@@D@$ H@0C.6F$
#$IJ$!G$36K7D9.K@97$ #$IJ$,G$36K7D9.K@97$
8

Figure 27: Monthly average MoUs in some European countries (ICTA, 2011)
2.2. Key Marketing Metrics of Turkish Mobile Operators (TMOs)
In mobile telecom various marketing metrics are being used such as number of
subscribers, market share, churn rate, minutes of usage and average revenue
per user. Details of these metrics for Turkish mobile telecom operators are
given in Appendix-I.
2.3. Financial Overview of TMOs
2.3.1. Revenue Items
As of 2010, the main revenue item of Turkish mobile operators is voice and it
is followed by SMS, value added services (VAS) and data traffic (See Figure
28). Since the operators started to provide 3G service in 2009 the share of
data has increased significantly and it is expected that it will continue to
increase in the years to come in accordance with the increase of penetration of
USB modems and smartphones.

!"#$#% !"#$&%
!!'$(%
)&*$&%
)'#$!%
)(&$#%
)!*$#%
))+$"%
!"
#!"
$!!"
$#!"
%!!"
%#!"
&!!"
,-./01% 2-13./4% 56-718% 9:% ;<.=/% 2>.38% ?@->6A.3% B1-C./8%
D
=
/
6
>
1
E
%
9

Figure 28: Revenue items of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)
2.3.2. Net Sales Revenue
According to financial reports provided by mobile operators, as of 2010 Q4,
Turkcell generates approximately 8 billions TL of net revenue per year
whereas Vodafone generates 3.4 billions TL and Avea generates 2.6 billions
TL (See Figure 29). Although in the past years, net sales revenue figures of
service providers has showed a volatile trend, since 2009 revenues are in an
increasing trend with the aid of recovery in global financial markets after 2008
credit crunch.


Figure 29: Net sales revenues of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)
2.3.3. Net Profits
Despite the high revenue numbers of operators, Turkcell is still the only
profitable one in Turkish mobile telecom market (See Figure 210). Even
!"#$
!#$
"#$
%#$
&'()*$
+,+$
-./.$
&.01*$233*3$+*45()*6$
!"!"#
$%&'#
'%"(#
")&$# ")*!# "))!#
&%&(# &(")#
*$&%# *$((#
*!(+#
((%+#
&)$!#
&*(+#
&$!!#
&+'(#
*%)'#
*$%!#
!"
#!!!"
$!!!"
%!!!"
&!!!"
'!!!"
(!!!"
)!!!"
*!!!"
+!!!"
*))!# *))$# *))'# *))"# *))+# *)&)#
,
-
.
#
/
0
1
-
2
#
3
-
4
-
5
6
-
2
#
7
8
9
1
1
9
:
5
2
#
;
<
=
#
;6>?@-11# A:B0C:5-# D4-0#
10
though the yearly investment budgets and sales acquisition costs (SAC) of
operators are approximately equal, the loyal subscriber base of Turkcell aids
the company to have positive profit results.


Figure 210: Net profits of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)
On the other hand, high churn rate, high sales acquisition costs and high cost
of yearly investments, which is highly necessary to survive in such a market,
force Vodafone and Avea to deliver negative profit results.

However, Vodafones main shareholder Vodafone Group and Aveas main
shareholder Turk Telekom which are both financially strong companies are
determined to continue to invest in and that Vodafone and Avea promise
positive profit figures in the years to come.
2.3.4. Yearly Investments
With the aid of 3G license fees paid to government, 2009 was the year that the
highest investment made by mobile operators with a total investment amount
of 4.6 billions TL. This figure is higher by 132% than the total investment
made in 2008. In 2010 total investment of mobile operators was approximately
2.7 billions TL (See Figure 211).

!"!#
$%!&# $'($#
)("!#
**)&#
+)"!&#
+)&$#
+!!'# +!%*#
+$)'&#
+&%)# +&)*#
+!$#
+!$"#
+$*"(#
!"###$
!%###$
!&###$
!'###$
#$
'###$
&###$
%###$
"###$
*((!# *((,# *((&# *((%# *(('#
-
.
/
#
0
1
2
3
/
4
#
5
6
7
8
8
7
2
9
4
#
:
;
<
#
:=1>?.88# @2ABC29.# DE.B#
11

Figure 211: Yearly investments of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)
2.3.5. Financial Indicators
The most common financial ratios used when assessing the performance of a
mobile operator are given in Appendix-II. ROCEs and EBIT margins of
Turkish mobile operators are in Figure 212.


Figure 212: ROCE and EBIT Margins of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)












!"#$
"%&$
!'($
)"*$
%"&#$
**)$
%'!$
)'&$
#"'$
((+$
%))+$
%'(#$
#)'$
)!#$
%+'$
!)"$
%&'"$
"#"$
!"
#!!"
$!!"
%!!"
&!!"
'!!!"
'#!!"
'$!!"
'%!!"
'&!!"
#!!!"
&'')$ &''+$ &''*$ &''"$ &''!$ &'%'$
,
-
.
/
0
1
$
2
3
4
-
5
6
7
-
3
6
5
$
8
7
9
0
0
9
:
3
5
$
;
<
=
$
;>/?@-00$ A:B.C:3-$ D4-.$
!"#$%&'( )*+, -$.,/$0+ &1234+55
8CCL-8eLurn on CaplLal LxpendlLure (neL lncome before Lax and lnLeresL/pald caplLal) -0.46 0.64 17.37
L8l1 Maraln (Larnlnas before lnLeresL and Lax / operaLlna revenue) -9.19 0.32 20.04
12
2.4. Strengths and Weaknesses of Turkish Mobile Telecom Industry
2.4.1. Strengths
Young population of the country
(As of 2011 population of Turkey is 74 millions and 50% of the
population is under the age of 29.2,) (TSI, 2011)

Established regulatory authority of ICTA

Qualified personnel force (Engineers, marketers, etc.)

Geographic location of the country

Well implemented international standardization policies

Powerful non-governmental organizations and their collaboration with
government agencies

Existence of qualified and successful entrepreneurs

Widespread conventional and Internet media

Well-integrated and strong banking and finance system

Strong retail distribution network
2.4.2. Weaknesses
Inadequate competitive regulatory environment

Tax load on mobile operators

Lack of domestic hardware and software manufacturers

Inadequate research & development focus and incentives

Lack of the transformation to market oriented business from
technology-oriented business.

Dependency on import, foreign currencies and overseas economical
conditions

Lack of the distribution of 3G-service quality to countrywide.

Low post-paid subscriber bases of mobile operators

Lack of satisfactory bundle contract offerings (monthly plan + handset
offerings)
13
2.5. Conclusion
Between the years of 1994 and mid 2000s, Turkish mobile telecom market has
showed a remarkable development and almost reached its peak in terms of
technologic infrastructure, competitive environment and market development.

Today, each operator in the market has focused on to enhance their offerings
and meet the needs of customers better whereas before mid 2000s it was to
acquire more and more customers without any concern of customer experience
in order to achieve growth in subscribers. However, not surprisingly, current
focus is on the customer retention as there are not much potential of acquiring
new customers due to the high penetration rate in the market.

Therefore, today, the main differentiator in the market has become the holistic
experience that is being promoted by the mobile operators and perceived by
the customers as a major purchase decisions influencer. Although there are
still some development areas in many aspects of the market, the current focus
of mobile operators should be to offer excellence in customer experience,
which will ultimately lead them to business success in terms of many
marketing and also financial metrics.

In the next section of this paper, which is the literature review, the author will
look into the extant concepts of customer value and customer experience.





14
3. Literature Review
3.1. Customer Experience (CE)
3.1.1. What is Meant by Customer Experience?
The meaning of the word experience has been discussed for a long time. In
English, the term experience is both a noun and a verb, which therefore
causes lack of clarity and disagreement in different ways. According to Tynan
and McKechnie (2009) the term experience is used variously to convey the
process itself, participating in the activity, the affect or way in which an
object, thought or emotion is felt through the senses or the mind, and even the
outcome of an experience by way of a skill or learning. Also Palmer (2010)
noted this lack of clarity by giving definition examples from extant literature,
which imply this ambiguity in different ways. However, the very first usage of
the term experience goes back to 1950s. Abbott (1955), cited in Holbrook
(2006, p 40) noted that:

What people really desire are not products, but
satisfying experiences. Experiences are attained through
activities. In order that activities may be carried out,
physical objects for the services of human beings are
usually needed. Here lies the connecting link between
mens inner world and the outer world of economic
activity. People want products because they want the
experience, which they hope the products will render.

After Abbott (1955), between 1960s and 1990s academicians and practitioners
had presented many different experience definitions. For example, Dewey
(1963) added the uniqueness dimension to the definition of experience by
stating that experience involves uniqueness that makes an activity stand out
from the ordinary. Years after from Dewey (1963), Pine and Gilmore (1998)
added another dimension, which is sustainability over time by stating
experience is what a customer finds unique, memorable and sustainable over
time. However, none of the definitions have included emotions as an
important part of experiences until the end of 1990s. Schmitt (1999a, p 26)
stated that experiences provide sensory, emotional, cognitive, behavioural
and relational values that replace functional values. This was later followed
15
by Gupta and Vajic (2000, p 34) who provided a more in-depth definition by
stating that an experience occurs when a customer has any sensation or
knowledge acquisition resulting from some level of interaction with different
elements of a context created by the service provider. There are some other
definitions, which broaden the concept of experience. For example according
to Harris et al. (2003), total customer experience emphasises the importance
of all contacts that a consumer has with an organisation and the consumers
holistic experience.

Existing definitions of customer experience still fail to present a unified basis
over their validity and scope. On the other hand, broad definitions take us back
to the Abbotts (1995) definition, which explains the transformation of
products into perceived value of customer whereas specific ones show
inefficiency to embrace all aspects of experience. However, given the diversity
of definitions of customer experience, a unified underpinning theory is likely
to be difficult to achieve.
3.1.2. Evolution of CE
According to Palmer (2010), customer experience can be a substitute for
customer relationship as it overcomes the theoretical and practical
limitations of customer relationship management. This substitution can be
consider as a paradigm displacement and must be thoroughly investigated. In
order to understand the reasons underlying the growth of interest in customer
experience management, it is very useful to understand the evolution of
competitive differentiators in marketing, as they are the leading reason why
firms change their operating strategies.

16

Figure 31: Palmers (2010) illustration for the evolution of the dominant basis for marketing-
based competitive advantage, based on Christopher et al. (1991).
Christopher et al. (1991) argued for a model by which the dominant basis for
marketing-based competitive advantage has evolved, noting that during 1950s
and 1960s firms used tangible product qualities to gain competitive advantage
and as this trend reached a plateau from the 1970s, the focus for competitive
differentiation moved to services. After that, services eventually became
generic from the 1980s and the quality of ongoing relationships became the
new differentiator (Christopher et al., 1991). 20 years later, Palmer (2010)
extended Christopher et al.s (1991) evolution approach to one step further by
asking the questions as follows:

What happens if relationships themselves become
generic, and all companies operating in a product area
and targeting similar groups of customers have similar
patterns of relationship development activity?

Palmer (2010 p 197) have sought the answers of these questions and noted,
experience might be a differentiator in markets where relationships have
ceased to be a point of competitive differential advantage (See Figure 31).

However, critically investigating the adoption of differentiation based on
experiential values as the new paradigm in marketing is crucial in respect to
Gladwells (2000) model of how new ideas emerge and are subsequently
challenged by a new emerging approach.

!"#$%$&'(')&*+(,$-*)&*.(&/"01$*!$,"/&*2$(34%$,*
!"#$%$&'(')&*+(,$-*)&*5$%6"7$*+$&$83,*
!"#$%$&'(')&*+(,$-*)&*9$1(')&,:";,*
!"#$%$&'(')&*+(,$-*)&*<=;$%"$&'(1*>(14$,*
17
According to Palmer (2010), if a sequential model of paradigm displacement
is accepted, to explain and justify the progression from relationship focus to
experience focus can be done by investigating the intellectual and practical
shortcomings of what has become known as relationship marketing. Studies
of Brady and Cronin (2001) and Gerpott et al. (2001) showed that relationship
marketing remains challenged by evidence that customers who are satisfied
with their relationship may nevertheless not return to a service provider.
Therefore purely relying on the conceptual framework of relationship
marketing seems to be inadequate as it is being challenged by its own
shortcomings, which are lack of attention given to the consumers emotional
state and the failure of considering consumers emotions as a major influencer
in purchasing behaviour. Many academicians pointed out the importance and
role of how positive and negative emotions consumers associate with a service
encounter affect the future behavioural intentions (Allen et al., 1992; Oliver,
1993; Richins, 1997; Barsky and Nash, 2002). The importance of emotions in
customer experience will be discussed more in-depth later in this paper.
3.1.3. CE Components
Many authors have proposed various component sets (or tactics or main steps)
that form the body of CE and many significantly closer words which have
been used to refer to those components such as principles (Pine and
Gilmore, 1998), features (Mascarenhas, Kesavan and Bernacchi, 2006),
dimensions (Chang and Horng, 2010) and components (Gentile, Spiller
and Noci, 2007). All of these words refer to the main ingredients of the CE
structure and help us to comprehend the total concept of CE by dividing it into
smaller complementary pieces.

Pine and Gilmore (1998) identified five key experience-design principles (See
Appendix-III). Although these principles propose ways and tactics to design
an experience, they can be considered as a component set for designing
experiences.

18
Mascarenhas, Kesavan and Bernacchi (2006) reviewed some business cases in
literature of which companies succeeded in designing and delivering CE and
analysed their main features in common. Details of these common features are
given in Appendix-IV. Although these common features do not offer a
complementary framework for CE, they can be considered as common
characteristics of well-operating and well-implemented CE structures and
therefore as components of CE. In their paper on experience quality, Chang
and Horng (2010) proposed 5 dimensions for the concept of experience quality
(See Appendix-V). Their study has significant importance as it differs from
previous papers on CE by targeting to reveal the underlying elements of the
quality aspect of CE components. Similar to authors mentioned above,
Gentile, Spiller and Noci (2007) has investigated the extant literature on CE
and noted the components of CE as given in Appendix-VI.

As summarized and explained above, many authors have approached the CE
concept from different angles and came up with different component sets.
Thus, it is likely to be difficult to find an underpinning component set for CE.
3.2. Customer Value
3.2.1. What is Meant by Customer Value?
Value is at the centre of experiences together with emotions. In recent years
there has been a growing interest in defining value both from academicians
and practitioners. However, even today, defining customer value has been
acknowledged as difficult by many authors (e.g. Piercy and Morgan, 1997;
Woodruff, 1997). Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and Nauman (1995), cited in
Khalifa (2004 p 647), noted that; these difficulties stem from the subjectivity
and ambiguity of value which is compounded by the fact that customer value
being a dynamic concept that evolves over time. However, it is quite
important to notice that there is a general consensus in the literature that
customer value is determined by customers perception not by service
providers assumptions or intentions (Belasco and Stayer, 1993; Anderson and
Narus, 1998; Woodruff and Gardial, 1996; Zeithaml, 1988). For some other
authors, value is defined by the customer in the marketplace not by the
19
supplier in the factory (Webster, 1994); or as Doyle (1989, p 78) puts it: value
is not what the producer puts in, but what the customer gets out.
3.2.2. A Review of Value Models
Khalifa (2009) has grouped value models in extant literature into 3
overlapping and complementary groups, which presents a cohesive framework
and separately emphasizes certain dimensions of the concept as: value
component models, utilitarian or benefit/cost models and means-end models.
Details of this review are given in Appendix-VII.
3.2.3. Co-creation of Value
The main goal of every business is to make profits and continue its operations,
as they get bigger in terms of revenue, marketing domains, brand value, etc.
To achieve this, for many years, until mid 1990s, most of the firms adopted a
classical marketing strategy of which suppliers produced goods and services
and customers purchased those goods and services. This approach indicates a
one-way transaction system, which cannot be viable today as it is inadequate
to meet needs and wants of customers. In fact, most likely, the main reason of
this is the improved intellectual and awareness level of customers, which have
never been this dominant before. They are now informed, connected,
networked, and empowered on a scale as never before, thanks to search
engines and engagement platforms like Google, the growth of Internet-based
interest groups, and widespread high-bandwidth communication and social
interaction technologies and they no longer need to be mere passive
recipients of value propositions offered by the firms (Ramaswamy, 2008 p 9).
The importance of co-creation of value for the firms in order to generate value
to customers has been addressed by many authors. According to Normann and
Ramirez (1993 p 69) the key to creating value is to coproduce offerings that
mobilize customers. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000), cited in Vargo and
Lusch (2004) noted that the market has become a venue for proactive
customer involvement, and they argue for co-opting customer involvement in
the value-creation process. Also in their inspiring paper on S-D Logic, Vargo
and Lusch (2004) stated that the customer is always a co-creator of value and
20
there is no value until an offering is used. Two years later Vargo and Lusch
(2006) extended their definition on co-creation of value and noted that the co-
creation of value is a desirable goal as it can assist firms in highlighting the
customers or consumers point of view and in improving the front-end
process of identifying customers needs and wants. Likewise, Gronroos (2000,
pp. 2425) states;

Value for customers is created throughout the
relationship by the customer, partly in interactions
between the customer and the supplier or service
provider. The focus is not on products but on the
customers value-creating processes where value emerges
for customers and is perceived by them, ... the focus of
marketing is value creation rather than value distribution,
and facilitation and support of a value-creating process
rather than simply distributing ready-made value to
customers.

At this point, Ramaswamy (2008) explains how co-creation works and how
value is derived through the collaboration of firms and their customers by
giving examples from the worldwide famous shoe manufacturer Nike (See
Appendix-VIII). Today, thanks to that transformation company had in 2006,
Nike can generate and refine new ideas rapidly, accumulate learning about
what customers want and dont want and how they want to engage
(Ramaswamy, 2008 p 10).

Apart from successful business cases on value co-creation, some academics
have offered different frameworks for co-creation of value that provides a
general concept. For example, Payne, Storbacka and Frow (2008) have
proposed a value co-creation framework by pulling together 3 different
process groups; customer value-creating processes, supplier value-creating
processes and encounter processes (See Figure 32).

21

Figure 32: A framework for value co-creation (Payne, Storbacka and Frow, 2008 p 86)
Apart from frameworks in value co-creating literature, Ramaswamy (2008)
proposed the DART guideline for which companies want to engage with its
customer to co-create value.

According to Ramaswamy (2008 p 11), co-creating value with customers
involves rapid and continuous learning by the firm from interactions with
them about how they relate to the options and features that the firm has on
offer and how those offerings might be of more value to customers. Through
adopting this approach Ramaswamy (2008) took this idea one step further and
proposed the Experience Co-Creation (ECC) which combines customer
experience and value co-creation. He illustrates this with NikePlus example as
follows:

In May 2006, Nike launched the Nike+ (NikePlus)
platform, a collaboration between Nike and Apple,
consisting of an Apple iPod music player, a wireless
device to connect the music player to running shoes, a
pair of Nike shoes with a special pocket to accept the
wireless device, and membership in the iTunes and Nike+
online communities (itunes.com and nikeplus.com). The
Nike+ co-creation platform capitalizes on the connection
between running and music. The combination of
innovative, mobile technology, online communities and
athletic gear expands the field for co-creation.

22
According to Ramaswamy (2008), Nike has managed this co-creation of value
process by using DART Model (See Figure 33).


Figure 33: The DART Model (Ramaswamy, 2008 p 11)
Co-creating value has an important role in customer experience dynamics. As
mentioned in the CE Components section of this paper, one of the main pillars
of CE is to engage with customers. As customers engaged with the company,
campaigns, other customers, products, etc. the more they will be a part of the
experience and literally they will live the experience. Co-creating value is
likely to be one of the most efficient ways of providing engaging experiences
to customers and that it is embedded in the notion of CE by many authors and
by this paper.
3.2.4. Relativity of Value and Emotions and Their Interrelationship With
Customer Experience
Given the definition of value is being made by customers, it is important to see
that value is a relative measure. According to Barnes, Blake and Pinder (2010
p 29) value is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore creating
a certain value concept or definition that satisfies and meets the needs of every
customer is likely to be difficult. However, it is possible to investigate what is
valued most in a market by customers to prioritise the company resources in
order to provide superior customer value and excellence in customer
experience.

23
Emotions act as a source of information, which are used to evaluate a stimulus
and lead to the formation of an attitude (Palmer, 2010). Mattila (2001, p 75)
noted that Emotionally bonded customers tend to invest more in their
relationships than customers lacking affective commitment. Many authors
have accepted the influencing power of emotions on customer satisfaction and
longer-term behavioural intention during pre, actual and post experience
stages of a service encounter (Oliver, 1997; Cronin et al., 2000; Barsky and
Nash, 2002). This approach will be discussed in-depth later in this paper.

On the other hand, according to Hoyer and McInnis (2001) and Price, Arnould
and Tierney (1995), emotions are more likely to be effective in attitude
formation when they viewed as relevant and valuable to the product or service
being consumed. Similarly, in her study of emotions in the consumption
experience Richins (1997), cited in Tynan and McKechnie (2009) showed that
emotions are context-specific and may differ in character from those
experienced in other contexts, and so any investigation of consumption
meanings embedded in experience ought to be context-specific. Palmer
(2010) explains this context-specific approach with an easy-to-understand
example as follows:

For example, an individual who is tired and hungry may
see a restaurant primarily as a source of food, and efforts
by restaurant management to provide an experiential
environment will fail to appeal to that individuals
emotional state. It should follow that selective perception
is directed towards the food rather than the environment,
and therefore the experience retained in memory will
focus on the food component. For an individual on
vacation and visiting the restaurant for a social meal,
selective perception is more likely to be directed towards
environmental cues, which will be retained in memory.

As it has been explained clearly in the example above, the same product or
service could be low involving for some and high involving for others, thus it
can be said that emotions play a mediating role between an event and an
experience (Palmer, 2010).

24
Customer perceived value and customer experience is closely associated with
each other and emotions are the main driver of this process, which results from
any interaction with different elements of a context created by a service
provider. Oliver (1997), cited in Palmer (2010 p 198) noted that; The role of
emotions has been noted as a distinguishing feature of customer experience,
and a stimulus that has a positive affective outcome for one consumer may
have a negative outcome for another consumer with a different emotional
predisposition. Thus according to this assertion emotions are, or maybe even
more, relative than values. At this point, it is important to note that not every
interaction between customers and service providers generates emotions.
OShaughnessy and OShaughnessy (2003) noted that what people get
emotional about is indicative of what they consider to be particularly
important. Consequently, we can say that emotions, which ultimately charge
an experience, are being generated if only customers perceive the interaction
as valuable.

Simply put, what customers value differs from one to another and therefore
what generates positive or negative emotions for a customer depends on what
the customer values in the context created by the service provider. Thus, it is
crucial to reveal those emotion generator value drivers in order to design a
holistic customer experience.

This approach constitutes the basis of this dissertation as it summarizes the
interdependent connection between perceived value, emotions and customer
experience.
3.2.5. Value Analysis: What Do Customers Value?
Assessing and truly understanding value in business markets is the beginning
of the path to profit of companies (Anderson and Narus, 1998). According to
Zeithaml (1988) there are 4 different perceptions of value which are value is
low price, value is whatever I want in a product, value is the quality I get
for the price I pay and value is what I get for I give. Through a CE
perspective, the last definition suits better with todays business environment.
25
However, what is for sure, the value perception is highly relative and it is
highly difficult to obtain an underpinning definition or approach to the notion
of perceived value. In fact, the core answer lays beneath the term perceived
as the word itself points the relativity of value explicitly.

According to Anderson and Narus, (1998) a market offering has two elemental
characteristics: its value and its price. Thus raising or lowering the price of a
market offering does not change the value that such an offering provides to a
customer. Based on this idea, a value analysis analysing what a customer
group or a customer segment values in a specific market can exclude the
price variable to focus on the details of what drives value rather than
focusing on justifying the interrelationship between value and price.

On the other hand, many authors mentioned in the review of value models
section of this paper consider price as a variable inside the value equation.
According to this approach considered price as a relatively less effective
variable to the value may look like an inconsistency. However, as it is
mentioned before, finding an underpinning approach to the definition of value
is highly difficult and that focusing on value and excluding the price aspect
should be accepted as it provides a fresh perspective. After all, this idea does
not exclude the price aspect of the value notion, as it is insignificant, instead it
focuses on the value aspect of the equation to point to the importance of value
drivers.

To do this, field value assessment in other words gathering data first hand
whenever possible is the most common way to build customer value models
(Anderson and Narus, 1998). It is accurate and includes direct contact with the
ultimate user of the product or service in order to get feedbacks or opinions
directly. Accordingly, this paper investigates the answer of what do
customers value? by conducting a value analysis through a questionnaire
study.

At this point, it is important to distinguish the field value study conducted in
this paper among other studies in literature on the similar subjects such as
26
importance-performance analysis, value model build-up and value
equation build-up. Clearly studies that drew on these analysis techniques in
literature have provided useful insight on value, however this paper focuses on
CE and therefore needs to focus on the major components of CE, which are
value and emotions.

Drawing on the approach of Anderson and Narus (1998), the field value study
conducted in this paper has 3 major goals that individualize it.

First, it aims to provide suppliers proper tools to determine what
improvements are worthwhile and which ones have the highest priority in
context of CE; when they are developing a new offering in response to
customers requests or demands.

Second, in order to gain new customers, it aims to enable suppliers to craft
persuasive value propositions through providing the knowledge of how their
market offerings specifically deliver value to customers.

Third and the core goal, it aims and focuses to provide vital CE insight that
guides the development of new or improved products and services.
3.3. Holistic Customer Experience (HCE)
3.3.1. What is Meant by the Term Holistic?
According to the dictionary of Cambridge (http://dictionary.cambridge.org)
the term holistic refers to dealing with or treating the whole of something
or someone and not just a part. By adding this word to the definition of CE, it
refers to adding all stages of CE into consideration in order to adopt a
totalitarian approach on CE, which embraces and points to all experience
stages of a customer during a purchase event.

Tynan and McKechnie (2009) noted that to achieve co-creation of value
through the exchange of knowledge, skills and expertise, it is important to take
a holistic view of the consumption experience from the customers
27
perspective. Similarly, according to Arnould et al. (2004) consuming an
experience can be viewed as a process that takes place across stages including
pre-consumption, the purchase and core experiences, to the remembered
consumption experience (See Figure 34).


Figure 34: The customers holistic experience (Tynan and McKechnie, 2009, p 508)
In the pre-experience stage customers anticipate and prepare for consumption
by searching for information, imagining how the experience might be,
planning and budgeting for the experience (Arnould et al., 2004), whereas at
the customer experience and post-experience stages customers obtain value
from both engaging in the experience and from the consumption meanings
they co-create (Pealoza and Venkatesh, 2006). Engaging activities in
throughout the whole experience, multiple customer value sources and
meaning embedded in the experience and the outcomes the customer can
experience are detailed in Figure 35.


Figure 35: The customers holistic experience activities, value sources and outcomes
(Tynan and McKechnie, 2009, p 509), adapted from (Tynan and McKechnie, 2008)
According to Schmitt (1999a and b) customers obtain value from sensory
meaning through sight, sound, touch, taste and smell associated with the
experience. Emotional meaning incorporates the whole range of emotions
attached to the experience and goes far beyond liking and disliking (Richins
1997). For customers who seek out functional value, utilitarian meaning drives
rational economic consumer choices (Arnould et al., 2004).
28

Vargo and Lusch (2008) and Lusch et al. (2007) emphasised the importance of
value achieved through relational aspects. The relationship can be social in
nature and involve with other individuals or groups (Tynan and McKechnie
2009; McKechnie and Tynan 2008; Gainer, 1995) and also with inanimate
objects like the brand (Fournier, 1998) or the firm (Tynan and McKechnie,
2009). Today, customers also can obtain informational value via traditional
and online media (Kozinets, 1999). Furthermore customers can acquire value
through the consumption of novel experiences (Poulsson and Kale, 2004) and
from utopian meanings with respect to the consumers relations with physical
aspects such as place and space (Maclaran and Brown, 2005).

Following the experience there are a number of outcomes from the consumers
perspective. According to Holbrook (2000), successful experiences will have
entertained and generated enjoyment. Poulsson and Kale (2004) asserted that
customers may also have learned and developed new skills through
experiences and according to Holbrook and Schindler (2003) they may also
experience nostalgia. Consumers can engage in fantasising about how the
experience could have been given more knowledge, other contexts or even
other people to share it with (Tynan and McKechnie, 2009, p 509).
Consumers also evangelise for an exceptional experience to persuade others to
engage with it (Holbrook, 2000).
3.3.2. HCE Stages: Where does it start, where does it end?
Literature on CE generally focuses on the actual experience, which refers to
the exchange process. However CE extends beyond that and includes
different phases spanning from the pre-purchase to post-purchase, which we
call the holistic customer experience stages.

Many different perspectives have been proposed ranging from experience as
an outcome of a single service episode (Bitner et al. 1997) to a persistent
presence over time (McKenna 2002), but in essence most of them have
adopted the totalitarian structure of CE in different ways.
29

According to Shaw and Evens (2002) stages of customer experience are as
follows:

1.Expectation setting
2.Pre-purchase interactions
3.Purchase interaction
4.Product/service consumption
5.Post-experience review

Similarly, Arnould et al. (2004) have proposed a classification for CE as
follows:

1.Anticipated consumption
2.Purchase experience
3.Consumption experience
4.Remembered consumption and nostalgia

More recently, Tynan and McKechnie (2009) have simplified the holistic CE
stages as follows:

1.Pre-experience
2.Customer Experience (Actual experience during exchange process)
3.Post-experience

It is clear from these models that the customer experience extends beyond the
core exchange process and consumption, to encompass antecedents such as
exploration, planning and anticipation, and post-consumption activities such as
remembering, story telling and reminiscing (Turnbull, 2009) and even
evangelising (Holbrook, 2000).

In brief, according to literature, CE starts with a feeling of anticipation or
expectation, however it is difficult to pinpoint where it ends.
3.3.3. Role of Perceived Value in Designing a HCE
A holistic view of customer experience, encompassing emotions and all types
of value would be of significant worth to organisations. According to Turnbull
(2009), by adopting such an approach on CE provides organisations to extend
30
their value propositions to address anticipated and remembered consumption,
to fine tune their offerings in order to increase value whilst removing
unnecessary costs and ultimately to develop a better understanding of value-
in-experience may develop a significant competitive advantage.

However, little has been done to develop a holistic and empirically grounded
understanding of customer value across CE stages and that it is difficult to
draw on literature to provide basis to the role of value-in-experience. At this
point combining different perspectives on value in order to propose an
underpinning theory for value-in-experience can be regarded as reasonable.

For that, the following three principles, which have been selected among all
other perspectives, can be regarded as three important and common steps of
designing a HCE with a value-in-experience focus.

First, designing a HCE requires marketers to investigate and observe human
behaviour in deep. As mentioned before in this paper, customers value
different features of products/services, as they perceive value in different
ways. Before starting to design an experience, it is quite important to find the
answer of what do customers value in that specific business environment.

If we go back to Pine and Gilmores (1998) Disney example we see that
Disney marketing managers had recognised before everyone that
understanding the customer is the first priority. Similarly, referring to
Ramaswamys (2008) value co-creation example, Nike had noticed that they
are not simply a shoe manufacturer but an experience marketer, who is able to
offer people to run and enjoy with their friends, share their football skills with
rest of the world, combine the fun of listening to music while exercising and
so on. Both Disney and Nike achieved success in designing excellent CEs by
understanding what their customers value in the first place.

Without giving adequate attention to that, Disney might have interested
changing existing low-performance offerings - to enhance Disney experience -
even without knowing where the problem is. Similarly, Nike might have
31
interested in making deals with worldwide famous people to increase their
brand image during the FIFA World Cup 2006 by spending millions of
dollars. Instead, Nike achieved the same success, or maybe even more, by a
very little marketing budget which is only for designing a web site and the
Nike+ platform. Because that was what Nike customers wanted, they wanted
to be a part of the Nike experience, and Nike gave it to them.

Second, in designing a HCE it has crucial importance to remember that
experiences occur in such business environments, which are venues for
proactive customer involvement (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000) or
referring to Pine and Gilmores (1998 p 98) stage metaphor; an experience
occurs when a company intentionally uses services as the stage, and goods as
props, to engage individual customers.

At this point an interesting similarity between Web 2.0 technology and CE
draws attention. Web 2.0 technologies have allowed users to engage with web
sites and even co-create their content by using provided tools. Todays most
famous web brands such as Facebook, Blogger, YouTube, IMDB and
Wikipedia benefit from the user generated content feature of Web 2.0
technology. If we go back to the time before Web 2.0 when we use web sites
only to gather information and search for data, it is easier to see the contrast of
what has changed with this new technology. In some extent, the evolution of
web represents the evolution of CE whereas the user generated content feature
represents the engagement of firms with customers. Today, customers want
to engage with firms they purchased products/services from, they want to be a
part of the experience and want to have a role in the whole process. They
write comments of a product after they purchase it from Amazon, they put
their package unboxing videos of the product to YouTube to share it with
other people, they want to change things related with the product or the firm,
literally they want to participate in the experience. Therefore, it is reasonable
to consider active participation of customers as one of most important steps
of designing a HCE.

32
Third, HCE consists of multiple stages and therefore it is very important to
maintain the same quality, consistency and stability of the experience across
each stage. To do that, each stage in that specific CE environment must be
investigated and analysed. Service providers often focus on the part of the
service that they can control, however consumers perception of their total
experience may embrace non-controllable components (Palmer, 2010), which
can be in any stage of the HCE. For example for a restaurant which offers
delicious and well served meals, the dominant element of the whole
experience may be lack of available public parking spaces pre purchase
stage (Tynan and McKechnie, 2009) - and that for a customer who cannot
park his/her car near the restaurant, it doesnt matter how the meal is delicious
or how well they are served as long as he/she cannot reach that HCE stage -
Actual experience during exchange process (Tynan and McKechnie, 2009) -
untroubled. That experience will therefore be remembered as below average
and probably will result in customer defect.

To sum up, lack of extant literature on value-in-experience stands as an
impediment to provide knowledge from literature in this section of the paper.
However, in the following sections the author will seek the answer of what
do customers value? in multiple stages of the holistic customer experience
through a questionnaire study in telecommunication industry. The author
therefore believes that this study fills a gap in the literature on CE and
customer value as it empirically investigates the customer value across the
stages of HCE.






33
4. Research
4.1. Objectives
The aim of this research is to analyse what customers in Turkish mobile
telecom market value in different stages of the holistic customer experience
provided by their mobile operators, which are pre-experience, product/service
experience and the post-experience. This research will reveal the values and
value driver emotions in choosing a mobile operator, using a product or
service of a mobile operator and feelings derived after using a product or a
service of a mobile operator. Also, naturally, this research aims to provide
practical market knowledge and a fresh perspective to managers in Turkish
mobile telecom market in designing their products and all kinds of service
offerings in order to deliver a holistic customer experience.

Main question of this research is what do customers value in Turkish mobile
telecom market? and sub-questions are as follows:

Is there any relationship between respondents demographic
characteristics and operator preferences?
Which marketing channels are appropriate and relevant to
communicate and engage with customers in pre-experience stage of the
HCE?
Which parts of the HCE provided by mobile operators comprise
emotional significance, which may lead to either success or failure in
delivering a holistic experience?
How is the relationship between the desired quality of mobile telecom
services and price?
How do customers prioritize mobile telecom services when assessing
experiences provided by mobile operators? (e.g. Premium prices with a
strong coverage or low prices with a relatively weak coverage?)
How do customers engage with, interact and communicate each other
on their experiences with mobile operators in post-experience stage of
the HCE?
34
4.2. Approach
This research adopts the interpretivist research philosophy and the inductive
research approach as it targets to form general principles about the Turkish
mobile telecom market by using a particular set of facts, which are obtained
from the questionnaire study (See Figure 41).



Figure 41: Chosen components of Research Onionfor this study
(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007)
Experience, memories and expectations help individuals and groups to make
sense of situations. The notion of meaning therefore is constructed and
constantly re-constructed through experience resulting in many differing
interpretations. It is these multiple interpretations that create a social reality in
which people act. Under this paradigm, therefore, it is seen as important to
discover and understand these meanings and key contextual factors that
influence, determine and affect the interpretations reached by different
individuals (Flowers, 2009). Interpretivism helps the researcher to understand
the underlying reasons of individuals choices, which are caused by their
different perspectives.

35
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007), by adopting an
interpretivist approach, the researcher focuses on to understand the meanings
and interpretations of social actors and understands their world from their
point of view. In an interpretivist approach understanding what people are
thinking and feeling, as well as how they communicate, verbally and non-
verbally are considered important (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson,
2008). Because of the subjective nature of this paradigm it is generally
associated with qualitative research approaches (Eriksson and Kovalainen,
2008) however it is not always necessary and a quantitative approach can be
associated with it as well (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007).
4.3. Methodology
There has been a growing interest in conducting mixed-method researches in
recent years. Mixed-method is the term when quantitative and qualitative data
collection techniques are used together and for many authors it is very useful
to gather more information on the desired topic than the mono-method
(McQuarrie, 2006; Grene, Caracelli and Graham, 1989; Niglas, 2004).

However in mobile telecom, qualitative research often fails provide desired
data quality as it asks the questions such as why and how (Gordon et. al,.
2001). These questions are aimed at to understand the underlying reasons of
customer behaviour; however an average mobile telecom customer often fails
to provide the core reason of his/her purchasing behaviour as, probably, he/she
does not know it either. At this point, what should be done is to use a proper
interpretation method to translate the customer responses into valuable
business intelligence, which can be used as an input to marketing decisions.
However, as a better way, using quantitative techniques such as surveys often
provides purer data, which is more suitable for interpreting in mobile telecom.

Therefore, the researcher has chosen to conduct a quantitative mono-method
survey research to find the answers of the research questions. Quantitative
research is used as a synonym for any data collection technique such as
36
questionnaire or data analysis procedure such as graphs or statistics that
generates numerical data (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007).

The researcher has attended many focus groups conducted with mobile
telecom subscribers in Turkey and observed that they were far away to provide
useful knowledge about the customers perspective as most of the time focus
group attendees fail to stand as a proper sample for the whole customer base
and that it becomes very difficult to generalize the outcomes to the whole
customer base.

The main rationale for choosing mono-method questionnaire study for this
research is the need to gather quality and reliable data, which can be
generalized to whole customer base in the market. The only way to do so
seems to design a flawless survey which comprise well prepared questions
aimed at to gather information about the core reasons which force customers
to act in which ways resulting in purchasing decision.

However, naturally, the most critical part of this study is how the questions
were designed. In focus groups, the moderator asks general questions about
the desired objectives of the research and gets general answers, which often
fails to reveal the core feelings. Considering that, to design survey questions
flawlessly, researcher has consulted with market research professionals and
customer segment managers working in mobile telecom industry in Turkey.

Survey questions in this study comprise of very common discussions in the
market, vague points that needs to be cleared and points of conflict among
practitioners. The researcher believes that, thanks to its well-prepared
questions, the content of the questionnaire used in this study is far more
comprehensive and elaborate than an average focus group study in mobile
telecom.
37
4.4. Data Collection
4.4.1. Survey Design
Questionnaire used in this research consists of 4 main sections, which are
demographic questions, pre-experience phase questions, product/service usage
experience questions and post-experience phase questions (See Appendix-IX).

There are 4 questions in the first section in order to gather information on
demographic characteristics of the respondents such as education level, age
group and monthly mobile telecom spending. In the first half of the pre-
experience phase of the questionnaire there are 2 main questions and 14 sub-
questions in total. Questions are designed to observe which information
channels do customers value when deciding to start using an operator and
which factors affect their decisions in general. Next section, product/service
usage experience, consists of 11 questions, which all have 2 answer options
targeted to provide insight on the issues in mobile telecom, which are
associated with conflicts and discussions. 2 answer options of each question
help respondents to decide easily in which part of the discussion they would
like to be. In the second half of this section, there are 2 main questions, which
consist of 18 sub-questions in total and they are aimed at to observe in which
parts of the total experience customers face with problems and in which ways
customers act when they encounter a trouble with their mobile operator. The
last section, post-experience, is focused on emotional aspect of the holistic
experience. First and second questions in this section are targeted to explore in
which ways customers act when they had a good and a bad experience with
their mobile operators. The last question of the section asks respondents to
choose from the listed emotions the ones that they would like to feel through
the holistic experience provided by their operator.

University of Southamptons iSurvey tool has been used to design and
distribute the questionnaire. After all respondents completed the survey,
response data was downloaded from iSurvey and transferred into Microsoft
Excel for initial control and handling as Excel provides a very advance
interface to manage large and complex data. After initial analysis, statistical
38
tests and cross-tabulation analysis (Chi-Square tests) have been conducted on
SPSS. Details of these statistical analyses are given in Appendix-X.
4.4.2. Sampling
The main objective of this research is to obtain information on what do
subscribers of Turkish mobile telecom operators value throughout the holistic
customer experience stages. To collect appropriate information from a sample,
which possibly represents the total market population, the researcher has
adopted non-probability purposive sampling technique. According to
Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007) non-probability purposive sampling
enables the researcher to use his/her judgement to select cases that will best
enable the researcher to answer the research questions and meet the objectives
of the research. This sampling technique is often used when working with very
small samples and when particularly informative cases are to be selected
(Neuman, 2000) due to various reasons. However, although it gives
informative information about the market, the results of non-probability
sampling cannot be generalized to the total population statistically
(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007) and that this is one of the limitations of
this research.
4.4.3. Pilot Study
A pilot study is a pre-study conducted before the actual study in order to
improve the quality and efficiency of the final design. A pilot study can reveal
deficiencies in the design of a proposed survey and then these can be
addressed before time and resources are expended on actual study (NC3R
S
,
2006). The aim of a pilot study is simply to find and overcome any difficulties
before using the real questionnaire (Upton and Cook, 1997). Before launching
the survey, the researcher has conducted a pilot study with 15 respondents by
sending them the questions online and received their feedbacks. Based on the
feedbacks of respondents some changes have been made in the questionnaire.
Within the scope of these changes some questions has been modified, some
question types have been changed and some excess questions have been
eliminated to reduce the time needed to complete the questionnaire.
39
4.5. Data Quality
4.5.1. Profiles of Respondents
251 people from various socio-economic groups who live in different cities of
Turkey have completed the questionnaire. Frequency and percentage
distributions of all respondents demographic characteristics are given in
Figure 42. Majority of respondents are between the ages of 18 and 30 (See
Figure 43). Numbers of male and female respondents are almost equal (See
Figure 44). Majority of respondents are either university students or
university graduates (See Figure 45). Additionally, it is observed that there
are three main monthly mobile telecom-spending groups of the respondents,
which are 6TL-30TL, 30TL-50TL, and +50TL. 30TL-50TL spending group
consists of 3 minor sub-groups; details of those sub-groups and distribution of
all monthly spending groups are given in Figure 46.



Figure 42: Frequency and percentage distributions of respondents demographic
characteristics

!"#$%&'()* +&#, -
18 - 24 102 40.6
24 - 30 116 46.2
30 - 43 16 6.4
43 - 33 17 6.8
231 100.0
%#./#& +&#, -
Male 120 47.8
lemale 131 32.2
231 100.0
0/(1234'.$5#6#7 +&#, -
Plah School CraduaLe 21 8.4
unlverslLv SLudenL 83 33.1
unlverslLv CraduaLe (8A, 8S) 109 43.4
Plaher uearee (MS, MA, hu) 38 13.1
231 100.0
8'.397:$8';47#$<#7#1'=$>)#./4." +&#, -
61L-101L 14 3.6
111L-201L 42 16.7
211L-301L 44 17.3
301L-301L 78 31.1
+301L 73 29.1
231 100.0
40

Figure 43: Age group distributions of respondents

Figure 44: Gender distributions of respondents

Figure 45: Education level distributions of respondents

Figure 46: Monthly mobile telecom spending distributions of respondents
!"#$
!%#$
%#$
&#$
"'$($)!$*+,$+-./0$
)!$($12$*+,$+-./0$
12$($!3$*+,$+-./0$
!3$($33$*+,$+-./0$
!"#$
%&#$
'()*$
+*,()*$
!"#
$$"#
%%"#
&'"#
()*+#,-+../#01234256#
78)961:)5;#,543685#
78)961:)5;#01234256#<=>?#=,@#
()*+61#A6*166#<B,?#B>?#C+A@#
!"#
$%"#
$%"#
&$"#
'("#
!)*+$,)*#
$$)*+',)*#
'$)*+&,)*#
&,)*+-,)*#
.-,)*#
41
4.5.2. Limitations of the Research
Main limitation of this research is its narrow sample group, which may fail to
represent the actual characteristics of Turkish mobile subscribers. On the other
hand, in some demographic characteristic groups, such as High school
graduates and 45-55 year age group, number of respondents might be
considered as inadequate to generalise the outcomes of response analysis of
those specific groups. Lastly, this survey has been conducted on Internet, and
therefore this is another limitation of this research as all of its respondents
have access to the Internet.
4.6. Analysis and Discussion of Findings
In such research studies, which involve the responses on agreement and
disagreement scales, it is crucial to adopt a procedure to convert subjective
data such as Agree and Disagree into numerical representations in order to
analyse the results. In this research, except multi choice questions, for
agreement and disagreement questions, a special conversion procedure has
been applied to the data to convert agreement and disagreement scale
responses into numerical data.

To compute a single agreement score for each agreement and disagreement
type questions, Agree responses are converted into +3 marks, Slightly
agree into +1 marks, Slightly disagree into -1 marks and Disagree
responses into -3 marks. Neither agree nor disagree responses are
considered as neutral and excluded from the calculations (See Figure 47).
Thus, by adding up individual agreement scores of each respondent for each
question, an aggregate agreement score has been calculated for each of the
responses of each agreement and disagreement type questions. Arithmetic
means of those aggregate agreement scores, which are the final agreement
scores of questions, are exhibited in various types of charts throughout the
analysis section.

42

Figure 47: Conversion of agreement and disagreement responses into numerical expressions
For each question in the questionnaire, response results are analysed and
computed separately both for overall results and for each demographic
characteristic groups. Visual expressions of results are shown either in same
bar chart or in separate various charts according to the characteristics of the
data to be exhibited.
























!"
#"
$"
%#"
%!"
!"#
!$#
!%#
!&#
'#
&#
%#
$#
"#
&'())" *+,'-.+/"&'())" 0),.-)("&'())"
01("2,34'())"
*+,'-.+/"
2,34'())"
2,34'())"
43
4.6.1. Section-1: Pre-experience Phase of the HCE



Figure 48: Q1 and its sub-questions

Figure 49: Overall agreement scores of sub-questions of Q1
Question 1 has 6 sub-questions as shown in Figure 48. Q1.3 has the highest
agreement and Q1.5 has the highest disagreement scores (See Figure 49).
Rest of the findings related with the overall agreement analysis of Q1 are as
follows:

Respondents agree on that ads affect their purchasing decisions (Q1.1) but
its affect is limited in comparison to the effect of people around them
(Q1.2), in other words the word of mouth effect.
Respondents showed a substantial agreement on that they look into very
details of the mobile products and services that they will buy (Q1.3) and
as a consequence they showed a very strong disagreement on that they
decide irrationally in mobile telecom related decisions (Q1.5).






C.1
When decldlna Lo buv a new moblle llne or Lransferrlna vour moblle llne Lo anoLher
operaLor, whlch facLors affecL vour declslons ln aeneral?
C.1.1 Ads (1v, lnLerneL, on-sLreeL, radlo, newspaper, maaazlne ads) usuallv affecL mv declslons.
C.1.2 l value oplnlons of people around me, l usuallv ask Lhem.
C.1.3 l look lnLo carefullv Lhe deLalls of Lhe servlce LhaL l wlll buv.
C.1.4 l usuallv choose Lhe operaLor LhaL people around me use.
C.1.3 l don'L Lhlnk LhaL l acL raLlonallv ln Lhls Lvpe of declslons.
C.1.6 noLhlna affecLs mv declslons, l declde onlv bv mvself.
!
"
#
$
% !
"
&
'
%
(
"
)
'
%
!
"
#
*
%
+
)
"
,
!
%
!
"
!
!
%
!"#$%&
!"#%%&
!'#$%&
!'#%%&
!%#$%&
%#%%&
%#$%&
'#%%&
'#$%&
"#%%&
"#$%&
-)")% -)"(% -)"#% -)"'% -)"$% -)"*%
44

Figure 410: Agreement scores of Q1 distributed to age groups
Agreement scores of Q1 distributed to age groups show consistency with
the overall scores, however there are some little differences between
different age groups (See Figure 410).
Ads affect purchasing and choosing decisions of respondents in 18-45
year age groups whereas they are not much effective for respondents in
45-55 year age group (Q1.1). A similar case is observed for Q1.4 as well.
For respondents in 18-24 year age group the mobile operator that people
around them use has significant importance to them, probably because of
they are more social and prone to engage with their friends more than
other age groups (Q1.4).
It is observed that people in 45-55 year age group would like to decide by
themselves without any interference of friends and look into the details of
offerings thoroughly before making a purchasing or choosing decision
(Q1.6). However they do not hesitate to ask for information to people
around them if they need (Q1.2)


Figure 411: Agreement scores of Q1 distributed to gender
!
"
#
$
%
!
"
$
#
%
&
"
'
!
%
!
"
(
#
%
)
'
"
*
!
%
)
!
"
!
#
%
!
"
'
(
%
!
"
+
&
%
&
"
'
#
%
!
"
'
,
%
)
&
"
!
!
%
)
!
"
!
,
%
!
"
+
$
%
'
"
!
+
%
&
"
!
+
%
!
"
!
+
%
)
'
"
'
,
%
)
!
"
'
$
%
)
!
"
'
*
%
'
"
-
'
%
&
"
-
'
%
)
!
"
'
*
%
)
&
"
#
$
%
!
"
(
'
%
!"#$$%
!&#$$%
!'#$$%
$#$$%
'#$$%
&#$$%
"#$$%
.'"'% .'"&% .'",% .'"-% .'"#% .'"+%
'*%)%&-% &-%)%,!% ,!%)%-#% -#%)%##%
0
.
1
3

0
.
7
4

2
.
0
3

0
.
3
0

-
1
.
9
1

0
.
0
7

0
.
5
6

0
.
9
2

2
.
2
4

0
.
4
1

-
1
.
9
0

-
0
.
0
5

!"#$%&
!"#%%&
!'#$%&
!'#%%&
!%#$%&
%#%%&
%#$%&
'#%%&
'#$%&
"#%%&
"#$%&
C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 C1.6
Ma|e Iema|e
45
It is observed that mobile telecom ads are much more effective on female
respondents than male respondents (Q1.1).
Female respondents also value the opinions and comments of their friends
on their purchasing or choosing decisions more than male respondents
(Q1.2) and therefore naturally they slightly disagree on Q1.6.


Figure 412: Agreement scores of Q1 distributed to education level
It is observed that the higher the education level, the less the respondents
value the opinions of people around them on their decisions related with
mobile telecom products and services (Q1.2). A similar case is observed
for Q1.4 as well.
It is also observed that the higher the education level, respondents look
into details of offerings the more (Q1.3).


Figure 413: Agreement scores of Q1 distributed to monthly spending
It is also observed that ads are more effective on respondents in 11TL-
50TL spending groups (Q1.1).
Respondents in 6TL-10TL spending group do not look into details of
offerings as much as respondents in other spending groups (Q1.3).
0
.
4
3
1
.
0
5

1
.
9
0

0
.
6
2

-
1
.
9
0

-
0
.
1
4

0
.
5
5

1
.
0
0

1
.
8
9

0
.
5
9

-
1
.
5
8

0
.
1
2

0
.
3
6

0
.
8
0

2
.
2
7

0
.
2
4

-
1
.
9
9

0
.
0
6

-
0
.
1
6

0
.
4
7

2
.
4
5

0
.
0
5

-
2
.
3
7
-
0
.
3
2

!"#$$%
!&#$$%
!'#$$%
$#$$%
'#$$%
&#$$%
"#$$%
C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 C1.6
n|gh 5choo| Graduate Un|vers|ty 5tudent Un|vers|ty Graduate (8A, 85) n|gher Degree (M5, MA, hD)
!
"
!
!
#
$
"
!
%
#
!
"
&
'
#
!
"
%
$
#
(
$
"
$
)
# (
!
"
)
*
#
!
"
%
$
#
!
"
)
!
#
+
"
$
+
#
!
"
'
%
#
(
+
"
!
+
#
!
"
!
%
#
!
"
)
$
#
$
"
+
%
#
+
"
+
,
#
!
"
)
*
#
(
$
"
&
+
#
!
"
!
+
#
!
"
'
!
#
!
"
%
%
#
+
"
)
'
#
!
"
$
&
#
(
+
"
$
%
#
!
"
!
&
#
(
!
"
$
!
#
!
"
&
,
#
$
"
-
-
#
!
"
+
'
#
(
$
"
%
,
#
(
!
"
!
)
#
!"#$$%
!&#$$%
!'#$$%
$#$$%
'#$$%
&#$$%
"#$$%
.$"$# .$"+# .$"*# .$")# .$",# .$"'#
'/0($!/0# $$/0(+!/0# +$/0(*!/0# *!/0(,!/0# 1,!/0#
46
Not surprisingly, according to Q1.4, the higher the monthly mobile
telecom spending, the lower the need to be in the same network with
people around.
According to Q1.6 data, respondents in 6TL-10TL spending group
disagree on that they make their purchasing or choosing decisions without
asking anybody around them. It is observed that they usually ask and get
the opinions of other people.




Figure 414: Q2 and its sub-questions

Figure 415: Overall agreement scores of sub-questions of Q2
Question 2 has 8 sub-questions as shown in Figure 414. Q2.1 has the highest
agreement and Q2.3 has the highest disagreement score (See Figure 415).
Rest of the findings related with the overall agreement analysis of Q2 are as
follows:

Among advertising channels, TV is still the leading channel and the
Internet comes the second (Q2.2, Q2.2). However, respondents both value
the information that they receive through them on the contrary of radio
and printed ads (Q2.3, Q2.4).
C.2
When decldlna Lo buv a new moblle llne or Lransferrlna vour moblle llne Lo anoLher
operaLor, whlch lnformaLlon channels do vou value?
C.2.1 1v ads
C.2.2 lnLerneL ads
C.2.3 8adlo ads
C.2.4 rlnLed newspaper and maaazlne ads
C.2.3 Cn-sLreeL ads (e.a. blllboards)
C.2.6 CperaLor web slLes
C.2.7 CommenLs ln soclal medla
C.2.8 Sales people ln operaLor branch offlce
!
"
#
$
%
!
"
&
'
%
(
)
"
)
*
%
(
!
"
)
&
%
!
"
!
!
%
!
"
+
,
%
!
"
*
+
%
!
"
+
*
%
!"#$%&
!"#%%&
!%#$%&
%#%%&
%#$%&
"#%%&
-&")% -&"&% -&"*% -&"+% -&".% -&",% -&"#% -&"'%
47
Respondents also value the information that they get from operator web
sites and other social media means such as Facebook, Twitter and
discussion forums. However, their effect is limited in comparison to the
TV (Q2.6, Q2.7).
Surprisingly, it is observed that on-street ads such as billboards and
sidewalk ads do not have much effect on respondents (Q2.5).
Respondents have agreed on they do not value radio ads at all (Q2.3).


Figure 416: Agreement scores of Q2 distributed to age groups
Respondents in 18-24 and 30-45 year age groups value TV ads the most
(See Figure 416) (Q2.1).
Respondents in 45-55 year age group do not value Internet ads as much as
respondents in younger age groups (Q2.2).
Respondents in 30-45 year age group do not think that radio ads affect
their decisions but their agreement score is significantly higher in
comparison to other age groups (Q2.3).
Printed ads are significantly more effective on respondents in 30-55 year
age groups whereas they are not much effective on 18-30 year age groups
(Q2.4).
Respondents in 30-55 year age groups value information on operator web
sites more than respondents in younger age groups (Q2.6).
Surprisingly, respondents in 18-24 and 45-55 year age groups value
information in social media channels more than other respondents.
It is observed that respondents in 45-55 year age group value the
information that they get from sales people in operator branch offices
more than other respondents (Q2.8).

!
"
#
$
%
#
"
&
#
%
'
#
"
(
$
%
'
#
"
#
&
%
#
"
)
*
%
#
"
&
#
%
#
"
*
(
%
#
"
*
&
%
#
"
*
+
%
#
"
)
,
%
'
!
"
&
!
%
'
#
"
,
*
%
'
#
"
)
!
% #
"
,
(
%
#
"
!
$
%
#
"
)
,
%
!
"
#
$
%
#
"
$
(
%
'
#
"
!
,
%
#
"
$
(
%
#
"
,
!
%
#
"
(
&
%
'
#
"
&
&
%
#
"
!
(
%
#
"
&
!
%
'
#
"
&
+
%
'
!
"
)
&
%
#
"
!
-
%
'
#
"
,
*
%
#
"
-
)
%
#
"
-
-
%
!
"
&
!
%
!"#$$%
!&#'$%
!&#$$%
!$#'$%
$#$$%
$#'$%
&#$$%
&#'$%
"#$$%
.)"!% .)")% .)",% .)"&% .)"*% .)"$% .)"+% .)"-%
!-%'%)&% )&%'%,#% ,#%'%&*% &*%'%**%
48

Figure 417: Agreement scores of Q2 distributed to gender
As seen in Figure 417, female respondents value information that they
receive from sales people in operator branch offices more then male
respondents (Q2.8).
Likewise, female respondents value TV ads more then male respondents
(Q2.1). A similar case is observed for the information gathered from
social media means (Q2.7).
On the contrary of male respondents, female respondents value on-street
advertisements (Q2.5). A similar case is slightly observed for printed ads
(Q2.4).


Figure 418: Agreement scores of Q2 distributed to education level
As seen in Figure 418, it is observed that the higher the education level,
the lower the attraction level of TV ads on mobile telecom products and
services. Especially for respondents who are in higher degree education
level groups this case is observed more clearly (Q2.1).
On the contrary of other education level groups, respondents who are
university graduates value printed ads (Q2.4).
0
.
6
5

0
.
3
7

-
1
.
2
5

-
0
.
2
8

-
0
.
3
2

0
.
4
9

0
.
2
4

0
.
0
6

0
.
9
2

0
.
2
1

-
1
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
2
9

0
.
4
3

0
.
4
4
0
.
7
8

!"#$%&
!"#%%&
!%#$%&
%#%%&
%#$%&
"#%%&
"#$%&
C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 C2.5 C2.6 C2.7 C2.8
Ma|e Iema|e
1
.
1
4

0
.
8
1

-
1
.
1
9

-
0
.
2
9

-
0
.
3
3

0
.
6
7

0
.
1
4

0
.
2
4

0
.
9
0

0
.
1
8

-
0
.
9
5

-
0
.
2
5

0
.
2
0

0
.
3
4

0
.
4
3

0
.
6
0

0
.
8
7

0
.
3
6

-
1
.
1
7

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
3

0
.
4
5

0
.
3
0

0
.
4
8

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
0

-
1
.
3
9

-
0
.
4
5

-
0
.
3
4

0
.
6
3

0
.
3
7

0
.
0
5

!"#$$%
!&#'$%
!&#$$%
!$#'$%
$#$$%
$#'$%
&#$$%
&#'$%
C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 C2.5 C2.6 C2.7 C2.8
n|gh 5choo| Graduate Un|vers|ty 5tudent Un|vers|ty Graduate (8A, 85) n|gher Degree (M5, MA, hD)
49
Respondents who are in university student, university graduate and higher
degree education level groups value information gathered from social
media means more than high school graduate respondents (Q2.7).
It is observed in general that the higher the education level the lower the
effect of mobile telecom ads.


Figure 419: Agreement scores of Q2 distributed to monthly spending
Respondents in 30TL-50TL spending group value the TV ads the most
(Q2.1).
On the contrary of all other spending groups, respondents in 6TL-10TL
spending group do not value Internet ads as much as other respondents
(Q2.2).
The more the monthly spending, the more it is observed that printed ads
are perceived as valuable (Q2.4).
Similarly, the more the monthly spending, the more it is agreed that
operator web sites are valuable information sources (Q2.6).
On the contrary of all other spending groups, respondents in 6TL-10TL
spending group do not value the information received from sales people in
operator branch offices (Q2.8). A similar case is slightly observed for the
respondents in the same spending group for on-street ads (Q2.5).











!
"
#
!
$
%
!
"
&
'
$
%
!
"
'
(
$
%
!
"
)
'
$
%
!
"
&
'
$
!
"
&
*
$
!
"
(
+
$
%
!
"
&
'
$
!
"
)
,
$
!
"
&
'
$
%
*
"
(
+
$
%
!
"
&
+
$
%
!
"
!
&
$
!
"
(
-
$
!
"
*
,
$
!
"
-
(
$
!
"
+
-
$
!
"
(
+
$
%
*
"
&
#
$
%
!
"
!
'
$
!
"
!
)
$
!
"
#
!
$
!
"
(
,
$
!
"
#
'
$
*
"
&
,
$
!
"
#
-
$
%
*
"
*
,
$
%
!
"
!
,
$
%
!
"
!
(
$
!
"
,
*
$
!
"
(
(
$
!
"
*
)
$
!
"
,
#
$
!
"
!
(
$
%
!
"
'
+
$
%
!
"
!
(
$
!
"
!
#
$
!
"
#
-
$
!
"
,
)
$
!
"
#
(
$
!"#$%&
!"#%%&
!%#$%&
%#%%&
%#$%&
"#%%&
"#$%&
.&"*$ .&"&$ .&"($ .&",$ .&"#$ .&"+$ .&")$ .&"-$
+/0%*!/0$ **/0%&!/0$ &*/0%(!/0$ (!/0%#!/0$ 1#!/0$
50
4.6.2. Section-2: Product/Service Experience Phase of the HCE






Figure 420: Q3, Q3.1 answer options and Q3.1 response analysis
In overall results, it is observed that 38% of the respondents would like be
in the same network with the people they call, whereas 62% of
respondents do not care which network the person they call is in (See
Figure 420).

However, when demographic characteristics are examined it is observed
that, the younger the respondents, the more they want to be in the same
network with the people they call.

The same case is observed when monthly spending groups are examined;
the lower the monthly mobile telecom spending of respondents, the higher
the preference to be in the same network with people they call.






C.3
Conslderlna vour exLanL moblle operaLor experlence, please choose 1 opLlon ouL of 2 or 3
for each of Lhe followlna sLaLemenL palrs.
A l would llke Lhe person whom l call Lo be ln Lhe same neLwork wlLh me. lf noL, l mlahL conslder noL calllna.
8 l don'L care whlch neLwork Lhe person l call ls ln. l make Lhe call no maLLer whaL
C.3.1
!"#$ %&#$
'#$ ('#$ )''#$
*+,-.//$
0$ 1$
2(#$
!%#$
!)#$
)"#$
((#$
%2#$
%3#$
"&#$
'#$ &'#$ 2'#$ %'#$ "'#$ )''#$
)"$4$&2$
&2$4$!'$
!'$4$2($
2($4$(($
38
39
63
61
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
38
49
32
32
62
51
68
68
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
79
60
39
29
27
21
40
61
71
73
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
51




Figure 421: Q3.2 answer options and Q3.2 response analysis
In overall results, it is observed that when voice breaks or call drops
happened during voice calls 71% of the respondents gets frustrated and
consider to change their mobile operator, whereas 29% of respondents
think that talking cheap is more important than voice breaks and call
drops during voice calls (See Figure 421).

However, when demographic characteristics are examined it is observed
that, the younger the respondents, the more they want to talk without
voice breaks and call drops rather than talking with cheap voice offerings.

University graduate respondents and respondents in 21TL-30TL monthly
spending group have the highest preference ratio of talking without voice
breaks and call drops.

High school graduate respondents and respondents in 45-55 year age
group have the highest preference ratio of talking with cheap voice
offerings even if they had occasional voice breaks and call drops.
!
"#$%&'(#&)#*($+*$,-*.$"$*./0'.#*&$102/*$3&*)4($0&$/)55$6&07($6'&2.8$102/*$/)55($).6$#-)#$+28-#$+)4*$+*$
#-2.4$#0$/-).8*$+9$07*&)#0&:
;
"#$2($.0#$#-)#$2+70&#).#$#0$*./0'.#*&$102/*$3&*)4($0&$/)55$6&07($6'&2.8$102/*$/)55($)($50.8$)($+9$07*&)#0&$
5*#($+*$#)54$/-*)7:
<:=:>
!"#$ %&#$
'#$ ('#$ "''#$
)*+,-..$
/$ 0$
!1#$
!%#$
12#$
2(#$
%3#$
%4#$
24#$
1(#$
'#$ %'#$ 3'#$ 1'#$ 4'#$ "''#$
"4$5$%3$
%3$5$2'$
2'$5$3($
3($5$(($
73
69
28
31
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
57
71
77
61
43
29
23
39
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
64
76
80
67
68
36
24
20
33
32
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
52




Figure 422: Q3.3 answer options and Q3.3 response analysis
In overall results, it is observed that the high voice quality (HD voice or
other high quality voice technologies) is a major preference factor for
58% of the respondents, whereas 42% of respondents think otherwise
(See Figure 422).

30-45 year age group respondents have the lowest preference ratio,
whereas respondents in 24-30 year age group and 21TL-30TL monthly
spending group have the highest preference ratio of high voice quality as a
major preference factor.













A
volce quallLv ls verv lmporLanL for me. l mlahL conslder Lo sLarL uslna an operaLor LhaL has sllahLlv hlaher
prlces Lo beneflL from lLs hlah quallLv volce offerlnas.
8
volce quallLv ls noL LhaL lmporLanL for me. Slmplv, undersLandlna whaL Lhe person on Lhe oLher slde of Lhe
phone savs ls enouah for me.
C.3.3
!"#$ %&#$
'#$ !'#$ (''#$
)*+,-..$
/$ 0$
!!#$
1(#$
2"#$
3(#$
%!#$
24#$
12#$
&4#$
'#$ &'#$ %'#$ 1'#$ "'#$ (''#$
("$5$&%$
&%$5$2'$
2'$5$%!$
%!$5$!!$
58
58
43
42
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
57
57
60
55
43
43
40
45
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
50
60
64
56
56
50
40
36
44
44
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
53




Figure 423: Q3.4 answer options and Q3.4 response analysis
77% of respondents, which is a very high percentage, think that signal
coverage has utmost importance and any coverage related problem would
force them to consider changing their mobile operator, whereas 23% of
respondents think that value offerings are more important than occasional
coverage problems (See Figure 423).

On the contrary of all other demographic groups, for respondents in 6TL-
10TL monthly spending group, cheap voice offerings of a mobile operator
has nearly the same importance as its coverage strength.

However, for all respondents except ones in 6TL-10TL monthly spending
group, in other words except customers who seek cheap offerings no
matter what, clearly the coverage and the signal strength of a mobile
operator is the leading decision influencer in mobile telecom related
purchasing decisions.





A
lL frusLraLes me when l cannoL aeL anv slanal and lf lL happens more Lhan one Llme l mlahL Lhlnk Lo chanae
mv operaLor.
8
1he offerlnas of mv operaLor are reallv aood ln value, lf l cannoL aeL anv slanal l would ao somewhere else
and reLrv.
C.3.4
!!"# $%"#
&"# '&"# (&&"#
)*+,-..#
/# 0#
!'"#
1&"#
23"#
!("#
$'"#
$&"#
%("#
$3"#
&"# $&"# 4&"# 2&"# 1&"# (&&"#
(1#5#$4#
$4#5#%&#
%&#5#4'#
4'#5#''#
78
76
22
24
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
71
76
81
71
29
24
19
29
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
57
83
80
73
79
43
17
20
27
21
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
54




Figure 424: Q3.5 answer options and Q3.5 response analysis
75% of respondents do not want to pay an extra fee for any other service
even if their operator lets them know in advance, whereas 25% of
respondents think otherwise (See Figure 424).

However, when demographic characteristics are examined it is observed
that, the lower the monthly mobile telecom spending of respondents, the
more they do not want to pay for any extra fee related with any service or
product.

Respondents in higher degree education group have the highest ratio in
favour of the option B. Considering the percentage of 37%, they deem
charging any extra fee by letting customers know in advance is less
offensive on the contrary of other respondents.








A
l don'L wanL Lo pav for anv exLra fee oLher Lhan mv budaeLed plan, lL frusLraLes me when l have Lo pav
exLra for anv oLher Lhlna.
8 lf mv operaLor leLs me know before charalna anv exLra fee, lL's noL a bla deal.
C.3.3
!"#$ %"#$
&#$ "&#$ '&&#$
()*+,--$
.$ /$
!0#$
!0#$
01#$
!'#$
%2#$
%2#$
3'#$
%1#$
&#$ %&#$ 2&#$ 0&#$ 4&#$ '&&#$
'4$5$%2$
%2$5$3&$
3&$5$2"$
2"$5$""$
78
73
22
27
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
76
80
76
63
24
20
24
37
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
93
81
75
81
63
7
19
25
19
37
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
55




Figure 425: Q3.6 answer options and Q3.6 response analysis
75% of respondents think that they know the details of the services and
the tariff that they use, whereas 25% of respondents think service, tariff
and pricing details of mobile operators are too complex to follow and
understand (See Figure 425).

Respondents in 45-55 year age group and 6TL-10TL monthly spending
group have the lowest ratio in favour of option A, which either means that
they are not well aware of what they pay for or the details of services are
too complex to understand.

Respondents who are well educated such as university graduate
respondents and respondents who have a higher degree think that they are
well aware of the details of their tariff, monthly plan or the pricing details
of the mobile telecom services that they use.






! "#$%&'(')%*+#,(-.#./'0/#)12'&&#"#34%#1($#)/%#$%)1'*4#-&#')5
6 712'&&#$%)1'*4#12%#)--#0-89*%:;#"#$-(<)#,(-.#./1)#"#%:10)*+#91+#&-25
=5>5?
!"#$ %"#$
&#$ "&#$ '&&#$
()*+,--$
.$ /$
!"#$
!!#$
!"#$
"0#$
%"#$
%1#$
%"#$
2'#$
&#$ %&#$ 2&#$ 3&#$ 4&#$ '&&#$
'4$5$%2$
%2$5$1&$
1&$5$2"$
2"$5$""$
78
72
23
28
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
67
71
79
74
33
29
21
26
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
43
76
75
76
78
57
24
25
24
22
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
56




Figure 426: Q3.7 answer options and Q3.7 response analysis
71% of respondents indicated that when they send an SMS they want it to
reach to the receiver instantly without any delay or failure and in
otherwise cases they might consider changing their mobile operators,
whereas 29% of the respondents think cheap SMS offerings are more
important than that (See Figure 426).

On the other hand, it is observed that, except respondents in 18-24 year
age group, the younger the respondents, the more they want the SMS they
sent to reach the receiver instantly without any delay or failure.

Respondents in 6TL-10TL monthly spending group have the lowest ratio
in favour of option A, which means that they value cheap SMS offerings
more than its quality in terms of speed and reliability. A similar case is
partially observed for the respondents in 11TL-20TL monthly spending
group.




A
When l send an SMS lL frusLraLes me lf lL does noL reach Lo Lhe recelver lnsLanLlv. lf lL happens more Lhan
once l mlahL conslder chanalna mv operaLor.
8
Conslderlna Lhe low-prlce SMS offerlnas of an operaLor and Lhe posslblllLv Lo send Lhousands of SMSs wlLh
verv low cosL, lL does noL maLLer Lhe SMS reach Lo Lhe recelver lnsLanLlv, l can re-send lL aaaln and aaaln.
C.3.7
!"#$ %&#$
'#$ ('#$ "''#$
)*+,-..$
/$ 0$
11#$
!2#$
1&#$
(&#$
34#$
%%#$
3"#$
4"#$
'#$ %'#$ 4'#$ 1'#$ 2'#$ "''#$
"2$5$%4$
%4$5$3'$
3'$5$4($
4($5$(($
75
68
25
32
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
67
66
77
68
33
34
23
32
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
43
64
77
73
75
57
36
23
27
25
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
57




Figure 427: Q3.8 answer options and Q3.8 response analysis
In overall, 70% of respondents think that promotion SMSs that come from
various companies are annoying, whereas 30% of respondents think
otherwise (See Figure 427).

15% of respondents think that those promotion SMSs are a major reason
to change their mobile operator, and 55% of respondents think that mobile
operators should provide tools or services to block them someway.

On the other hand, 30% of respondents, which its majority is in 45-55
year old age group, think that promotion SMSs are useful and not
annoying.

Similarly, female respondents think that promotion SMSs are useful and
not annoying more than male respondents with a significant variance.

It is also observed that, the higher the education level of the respondents,
the more they want mobile operators to provide facilities to block
promotion SMSs.
A
lL frusLraLes me when l recelve a promoLlon SMS from a companv LhaL l even don'L now. l mlahL conslder
buvlna a new moblle number onlv because of Lhls.
8 Mv operaLor should help me Lo block Lhese klnd of SMSs.
C
l have no problem wlLh promoLlon SMSs, neverLheless l learn abouL new campalans and promoLlons
Lhanks Lo Lhem.
C.3.8
!"#$ ""#$ %&#$
&#$ "&#$ !&&#$
'()*+,,$
-$ .$ /$
!0#$
!%#$
!%#$
1#$
"!#$
12#$
1%#$
20#$
%&#$
2"#$
2"#$
1"#$
&#$ 2&#$ 3&#$ 1&#$ 4&#$ !&&#$
!4$5$23$
23$5$%&$
%&$5$3"$
3"$5$""$
22
8
57
54
22
37
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
19
20
13
5
33
51
54
82
48
29
33
13
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
7
19
20
18
7
57
48
45
55
66
36
33
34
27
27
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
58




Figure 428: Q3.9 answer options and Q3.9 response analysis
In overall, percentages of option A and B are very close to each other, and
that there is not much of a consensus between respondents on using
mobile internet services (See Figure 428).

49% of respondents think that they feel nervous while surfing in Internet
via their mobile phones as they worry about their data usage limit,
whereas 51% disagree that because they can always monitor and know
how much data they download and upload.

There are not much of meaningful differences between responses of
respondents in different demographic characteristics groups as they all
show consistency with the overall results.









A
Whlle surflna ln Lhe lnLerneL wlLh mv moblle phone, l ofLen worrv abouL mv quoLa and lL ofLen makes me
nervous.
8
l can alwavs calculaLe how much daLa l recelved and senL or l can conLrol lL laLer on, Lherefore l don'L feel
nervous.
C.3.9
!"#$ %&#$
'#$ %'#$ &''#$
()*+,--$
.$ /$
%&#$
%0#$
1&#$
!&#$
!"#$
!2#$
3"#$
%"#$
'#$ 0'#$ !'#$ 3'#$ 2'#$ &''#$
&2$4$0!$
0!$4$1'$
1'$4$!%$
!%$4$%%$
51
48
49
52
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
48
52
47
53
52
48
53
47
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
57
50
48
58
40
43
50
52
42
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
59




Figure 429: Q3.10 answer options and Q3.10 response analysis
In overall, it is observed that 59% of respondents often get lost in the their
mobile operators call centre voice menus, whereas 41% of respondents
can easily get to the menu they want (See Figure 429).

It is also observed that, interestingly, respondents in 18-30 year age
groups have problems with getting to the desired voice menu more than
respondents in 30-55 year age group.

The lower the monthly spending of respondents the more they get lost in
the voice menus of mobile operators.

The findings also indicated that, male respondents are having problems
with getting to the desired voice menu more than female respondents with
a significant variance of 9%.







! "#$%&'&()**&+#$&()**&($%+,$&-.&/0&-1$,)+-,&'&-.+$%&2$+&*-3+&4%&+#$&5-4($&/$%67
8 "#$%&'&()**&+#$&()**&($%+,$&-.&/0&-1$,)+-,&'&()%&$)34*0&2$+&+-&+#$&/$%6&'&9)%+7
:7;7<=
!"#$ %&#$
'#$ !'#$ &''#$
()*+,--$
.$ /$
0%#$
!"#$
%%#$
%1#$
20#$
%&#$
!0#$
!2#$
'#$ 3'#$ %'#$ 0'#$ 4'#$ &''#$
&4$5$3%$
3%$5$2'$
2'$5$%!$
%!$5$!!$
65
54
35
46
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
57
61
61
53
43
39
39
47
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
79
60
64
59
53
21
40
36
41
47
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
60




Figure 430: Q3.11 answer options and Q3.11 response analysis
In overall, it is observed that 73% of respondents want to talk with a real
person when they call the call centre of their mobile operator, whereas
27% of respondents think that what they need the most is a clear and easy-
to-understand voice menu (See Figure 430).

Respondents in higher degree education level group have the lowest ratio
in favour of the option A, which means that they want a clearer voice
menu more than other respondents.

There are not much of meaningful differences between responses of
respondents in other demographic characteristics groups as they all show
consistency with the overall results.









A When l call Lhe call cenLre of mv operaLor l would llke Lo Lalk wlLh a real person dlrecLlv.
8
When l call Lhe call cenLre of mv operaLor, whaL l need Lhe mosL ls a clear and easv-Lo-undersLand volce
menu, noL a real person.
C.3.11
!"#$ %!#$
&#$ '&#$ (&&#$
)*+,-..$
/$ 0$
!1#$
!&#$
!'#$
1'#$
%2#$
"&#$
%'#$
"'#$
&#$ %&#$ 2&#$ 1&#$ 3&#$ (&&#$
(3$4$%2$
%2$4$"&$
"&$4$2'$
2'$4$''$
73
72
27
28
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ma|e
Iema|e
76
73
78
53
24
27
22
47
0 20 40 60 80 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|. Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree
79
67
75
77
68
21
33
25
23
32
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
61



Figure 431: Q4, Q4 answer options and Q4 overall agreement scores
Research indicated that there are many components of HCE involved with bad
experiences in various levels. The ranking of mobile telecom experience
components are given in Figure 431 according to their prevalence of bad
experience involvement.

Talking with mobile operator call centre: Research data indicated that
mobile operator call centres are the main bad experience generators.
Despite the fact that customers often call call centres when they need
assistance or when they had a problem related with operator services or
products, a ratio that that high indicates an important problem which
therefore needs immediate attention as it may lead mobile operators to fail
to provide a good customer experience. Possible reasons of these bad
experiences are as follows: Failure to get to the correct voice menu,
waiting on the line for too long, having a call drop during waiting on the
line, being transferred to another agent, telling your story to different
agents again and again, incompetent agents on solving your problems,
offensive or unhelpful approaches of agents, etc.

Assessing offering details: Because of its background mobile telecom is
closely associated with technological terms. However, on the customer
side these technological and complex terms often cannot be understood
and cause misunderstandings which most of the time lead to a bad
experience. According to research data, assessing offering details is one of
the main bad experience generator factors among all mobile telecom
C.4
Conslderlna vour moblle operaLor experlence, ln whlch parL of vour LoLal experlence vou
had bad experlences, whlch made vou feel neaaLlve ln anv wav?
!"#$%&'(&%&)"*'+,-&.$&/)&'0"*-"/&/12
3 4""5$/6'7".'$/7".*81$"/'8#"91'*:'"-&.81".'"/'1;&'<&#
= >22&22$/6'"77&.$/6'?&18$%2
@ A9?6&1$/6
B C$/?$/6'8/'"-&.81".'#.8/);'"77$)&
D E&8%$/6'<$1;'-8-&.<".5'$/'#.8/);'"77$)&
F !85$/6'8'G"$)&')8%%
H I&/?$/6'I!I
J I9.7$/6'$/'K/1&./&1
L M2$/6'G8%9&'8??&?'2&.G$)&2
3N O8:$/6'#$%%2
33 ("--$/6P9-
3= M2$/6'"/%$/&'1""%2'$/'"-&.81".'<&#'2$1&2
3@ (8%5$/6'<$1;'"-&.81".')8%%')&/1.&
3B (8%5$/6'<$1;'28%&2'-&"-%&'$/'"-&.81".'#.8/);'"77$)&
QG&.8%%'R8/5$/6
3 (8%5$/6'<$1;'"-&.81".')8%%')&/1.& D=S
= >22&22$/6'"77&.$/6'?&18$%2 BBS
@ 4""5$/6'7".'$/7".*81$"/'8#"91'*:'"-&.81".'"/'1;&'<&# =LS
B A9?6&1$/6 =BS
D (8%5$/6'<$1;'28%&2'-&"-%&'$/'"-&.81".'#.8/);'"77$)& ==S
F E&8%$/6'<$1;'-8-&.<".5'$/'#.8/);'"77$)& =3S
H I9.7$/6'$/'K/1&./&1 =3S
J M2$/6'"/%$/&'1""%2'$/'"-&.81".'<&#'2$1&2 3LS
L !85$/6'8'G"$)&')8%% 3JS
3N M2$/6'G8%9&'8??&?'2&.G$)&2 3JS
33 C$/?$/6'8/'"-&.81".'#.8/);'"77$)& 3=S
3= I&/?$/6'I!I 33S
3@ O8:$/6'#$%%2 JS
3B ("--$/6P9- HS
62
experience components. It is observed that, respondents often fail to
understand the details of the services or products of mobile operators. For
example, pricing periods, on-net and off-net minute limits, SMS pricing
details, Internet usage limits and pricing details, general terms and
conditions, campaign details such as different terms and conditions
during the campaign period (e.g. different pricing terms for the first 3
months and for the last 3 months of a 6 months campaign), etc.

Looking for information on the web about the operator services:
Today, the Internet is a major, and probably the biggest, marketing
channel. However, the research data indicates that Turkish mobile
operators fail to exploit that channel adequately. Today, web sites and
official social media channels are the two main online official presence
ways of mobile operators and it seems that the service level for those
channels does not meet the needs of customers in terms of content and
accessibility. Today, call centres are the main contact channels of
customers with the operators, however considering how widespread the
Internet is, it is easy to see that the Internet can be an alternative for some
to contact with mobile operators in order to get information about
everything related with mobile telecom services and products and to
deliver complaints as well. On these grounds, possible reasons of
customers having problem when looking for information on the web about
their operators or operator services are as follows: lack of detailed
information on mobile services and products on the web, complex and
difficult to understand information on operator web sites, slow and
functionless social media presence, lack of community discussion
platforms (e.g. Apples discussion forums), lack of direct marketing focus
on operator web sites, inadequate online tools in operator web sites, etc.

Budgeting: 24% of respondents indicated that they are having trouble
with planning their monthly mobile telecom budget. Possible reasons of
this are as follows: extra fees involve tax or other additional charges,
63
renewal of paid services (e.g. value added services) without notification in
advance, voice call, data and SMS limit excess charges, etc.

Talking with sales people in operator branch offices: Sales people are
very important in a holistic customer experience design, as they are the
face of the company in the eyes of the customer. They are in a very
delicate position to convey the message of the company and to deliver the
customer experience. Research indicated that 22% of respondents had bad
experiences involved with sales people in operator branch offices.
Possible reasons of this are as follows: inadequate number of sales people
in branch offices, incompetence of sales people in terms of knowledge and
communication skills, approach to the customer (e.g. offensive, unhelpful,
etc.), waiting too long to see a sales people in a branch office, sales and
profit focused approach rather than a customer oriented approach, etc.

The rankings for different demographic characteristic groups are given in
Figure 432, Figure 433, Figure 434 and Figure 435 according to their
prevalence of bad experience involvement.


Figure 432: Q4 response analysis for age groups
!"#$#%&#'()#*+,-. %&#$#/0#'()#*+,-.
! 123456(#7589#,.)+28,+#:233#:)68+) &;< ! 123456(#7589#,.)+28,+#:233#:)68+) =/<
% '>>)>>56(#,??)+56(#@)8253> /A< % '>>)>>56(#,??)+56(#@)8253> =0<
/ B,,456(#?,+#56?,+C285,6#2D,-8#CE#,.)+28,+#,6#89)#7)D /!< / F-@()856( %=<
& G-+?56(#56#H68)+6)8 %A< & B,,456(#?,+#56?,+C285,6#2D,-8#CE#,.)+28,+#,6#89)#7)D %&<
= I2456(#2#J,5:)#:233 %=< = K>56(#J23-)#2@@)@#>)+J5:)> %&<
A 123456(#7589#>23)>#.),.3)#56#,.)+28,+#D+26:9#,??5:) %%< A L)2356(#7589#.2.)+7,+4#56#D+26:9#,??5:) %/<
M L)2356(#7589#.2.)+7,+4#56#D+26:9#,??5:) %!< M 123456(#7589#>23)>#.),.3)#56#,.)+28,+#D+26:9#,??5:) %%<
" K>56(#,6356)#8,,3>#56#,.)+28,+#7)D#>58)> %0< " K>56(#,6356)#8,,3>#56#,.)+28,+#7)D#>58)> %!<
; F-@()856( !"< ; G-+?56(#56#H68)+6)8 %0<
!0 N56@56(#26#,.)+28,+#D+26:9#,??5:) !=< !0 I2456(#2#J,5:)#:233 !A<
!! G)6@56(#GIG !&< !! N56@56(#26#,.)+28,+#D+26:9#,??5:) !%<
!% K>56(#J23-)#2@@)@#>)+J5:)> !0< !% O2E56(#D533> !%<
!/ 1,..56($-. ;< !/ G)6@56(#GIG !!<
!& O2E56(#D533> &< !& 1,..56($-. A<
/0#$#&=#'()#*+,-. &=#$#==#'()#*+,-.
! 123456(#7589#,.)+28,+#:233#:)68+) &&< ! 123456(#7589#,.)+28,+#:233#:)68+) M!<
% '>>)>>56(#,??)+56(#@)8253> /"< % '>>)>>56(#,??)+56(#@)8253> =/<
/ 123456(#7589#>23)>#.),.3)#56#,.)+28,+#D+26:9#,??5:) /!< / B,,456(#?,+#56?,+C285,6#2D,-8#CE#,.)+28,+#,6#89)#7)D &M<
& B,,456(#?,+#56?,+C285,6#2D,-8#CE#,.)+28,+#,6#89)#7)D %=< & F-@()856( &M<
= F-@()856( %=< = L)2356(#7589#.2.)+7,+4#56#D+26:9#,??5:) %&<
A K>56(#J23-)#2@@)@#>)+J5:)> !;< A K>56(#J23-)#2@@)@#>)+J5:)> !"<
M L)2356(#7589#.2.)+7,+4#56#D+26:9#,??5:) A< M 123456(#7589#>23)>#.),.3)#56#,.)+28,+#D+26:9#,??5:) !"<
" I2456(#2#J,5:)#:233 A< " I2456(#2#J,5:)#:233 !%<
; G-+?56(#56#H68)+6)8 A< ; O2E56(#D533> !%<
!0 O2E56(#D533> A< !0 K>56(#,6356)#8,,3>#56#,.)+28,+#7)D#>58)> !%<
!! K>56(#,6356)#8,,3>#56#,.)+28,+#7)D#>58)> A< !! N56@56(#26#,.)+28,+#D+26:9#,??5:) A<
!% N56@56(#26#,.)+28,+#D+26:9#,??5:) 0< !% G)6@56(#GIG A<
!/ G)6@56(#GIG 0< !/ G-+?56(#56#H68)+6)8 A<
!& 1,..56($-. 0< !& 1,..56($-. A<
64

Figure 433: Q4 response analysis for gender

Figure 434: Q4 response analysis for education level
!"#$ %$&"#$
' ("#)*+,-.*/0-12$3"/13-4"##-4$+/3$ 567 ' ("#)*+,-.*/0-12$3"/13-4"##-4$+/3$ 5'7
8 9::$::*+,-1;;$3*+,-<$/"*#: =>7 8 9::$::*+,-1;;$3*+,-<$/"*#: ='7
6 ?11)*+,-;13-*+;13&"/*1+-"@1A/-&B-12$3"/13-1+-/0$-.$@ 8C7 6 ?11)*+,-;13-*+;13&"/*1+-"@1A/-&B-12$3"/13-1+-/0$-.$@ 8D7
= ("#)*+,-.*/0-:"#$:-2$12#$-*+-12$3"/13-@3"+40-1;;*4$ 8=7 = EA<,$/*+, 857
5 EA<,$/*+, 887 5 !")*+,-"-F1*4$-4"## 887
G H$"#*+,-.*/0-2"2$3.13)-*+-@3"+40-1;;*4$ 887 G IA3;*+,-*+-J+/$3+$/ 887
> K:*+,-1+#*+$-/11#:-*+-12$3"/13-.$@-:*/$: 8L7 > H$"#*+,-.*/0-2"2$3.13)-*+-@3"+40-1;;*4$ 8'7
D IA3;*+,-*+-J+/$3+$/ 'C7 D ("#)*+,-.*/0-:"#$:-2$12#$-*+-12$3"/13-@3"+40-1;;*4$ 8'7
C K:*+,-F"#A$-"<<$<-:$3F*4$: 'D7 C K:*+,-1+#*+$-/11#:-*+-12$3"/13-.$@-:*/$: 'D7
'L !")*+,-"-F1*4$-4"## '=7 'L K:*+,-F"#A$-"<<$<-:$3F*4$: '>7
'' %*+<*+,-"+-12$3"/13-@3"+40-1;;*4$ '67 '' I$+<*+,-I!I '=7
'8 M"B*+,-@*##: 'L7 '8 %*+<*+,-"+-12$3"/13-@3"+40-1;;*4$ ''7
'6 I$+<*+,-I!I D7 '6 M"B*+,-@*##: >7
'= (122*+,NA2 D7 '= (122*+,NA2 G7
Plah School CraduaLe unlverslLv SLudenL
1 Assesslna offerlna deLalls 43 1 1alklna wlLh operaLor call cenLre 46
2 1alklna wlLh operaLor call cenLre 43 2 Assesslna offerlna deLalls 41
3 Looklna for lnformaLlon abouL mv operaLor on Lhe web 38 3 Looklna for lnformaLlon abouL mv operaLor on Lhe web 27
4 8udaeLlna 24 4 Maklna a volce call 23
3 ueallna wlLh paperwork ln branch offlce 24 3 Surflna ln lnLerneL 23
6 uslna onllne Lools ln operaLor web slLes 24 6 1alklna wlLh sales people ln operaLor branch offlce 19
7 Surflna ln lnLerneL 19 7 llndlna an operaLor branch offlce 18
8 uslna value added servlces 19 8 ueallna wlLh paperwork ln branch offlce 18
9 1alklna wlLh sales people ln operaLor branch offlce 19 9 8udaeLlna 17
10 Maklna a volce call 14 10 Sendlna SMS 16
11 Sendlna SMS 3 11 uslna onllne Lools ln operaLor web slLes 16
12 avlna bllls 3 12 1opplna-up 12
13 1opplna-up 3 13 uslna value added servlces 10
14 llndlna an operaLor branch offlce 0 14 avlna bllls 7
unlverslLv CraduaLe (8A, 8S) Plaher uearee (MS, MA, hu)
1 1alklna wlLh operaLor call cenLre 36 1 1alklna wlLh operaLor call cenLre 38
2 Assesslna offerlna deLalls 47 2 Assesslna offerlna deLalls 42
3 Looklna for lnformaLlon abouL mv operaLor on Lhe web 28 3 1alklna wlLh sales people ln operaLor branch offlce 34
4 8udaeLlna 26 4 8udaeLlna 32
3 uslna value added servlces 24 3 Looklna for lnformaLlon abouL mv operaLor on Lhe web 29
6 ueallna wlLh paperwork ln branch offlce 22 6 uslna onllne Lools ln operaLor web slLes 26
7 1alklna wlLh sales people ln operaLor branch offlce 21 7 ueallna wlLh paperwork ln branch offlce 24
8 Surflna ln lnLerneL 19 8 Surflna ln lnLerneL 21
9 Maklna a volce call 17 9 uslna value added servlces 16
10 uslna onllne Lools ln operaLor web slLes 17 10 Maklna a volce call 13
11 llndlna an operaLor branch offlce 12 11 Sendlna SMS 13
12 avlna bllls 10 12 avlna bllls 8
13 Sendlna SMS 8 13 llndlna an operaLor branch offlce 3
14 1opplna-up 3 14 1opplna-up 3
65

Figure 435: Q4 response analysis for monthly spending


















!"#$%&"# %%"#$'&"#
% ())*))+,-./00*1+,-.2*34+5) 6%7 % "458+,-.9+3:./;*143/1.<455.<*,31* =>7
' "458+,-.9+3:./;*143/1.<455.<*,31* >&7 ' ())*))+,-./00*1+,-.2*34+5) =?7
? @A10+,-.+,.B,3*1,*3 =?7 ? C*45+,-.9+3:.;4;*19/18.+,.D14,<:./00+<* 'E7
= #//8+,-.0/1.+,0/1F43+/,.4D/A3.FG./;*143/1./,.3:*.9*D ?!7 = H+,2+,-.4,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* '!7
> I)+,-./,5+,*.3//5).+,./;*143/1.9*D.)+3*) ?!7 > #//8+,-.0/1.+,0/1F43+/,.4D/A3.FG./;*143/1./,.3:*.9*D '=7
! "458+,-.9+3:.)45*).;*/;5*.+,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* ?!7 ! J48+,-.4.K/+<*.<455 '=7
6 C*45+,-.9+3:.;4;*19/18.+,.D14,<:./00+<* 'E7 6 @*,2+,-.@J@ %67
L J48+,-.4.K/+<*.<455 'E7 L "/;;+,-$A; %67
E MA2-*3+,- '%7 E @A10+,-.+,.B,3*1,*3 %=7
%& @*,2+,-.@J@ '%7 %& N4G+,-.D+55) %'7
%% H+,2+,-.4,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* %=7 %% I)+,-./,5+,*.3//5).+,./;*143/1.9*D.)+3*) %'7
%' N4G+,-.D+55) %=7 %' "458+,-.9+3:.)45*).;*/;5*.+,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* %'7
%? "/;;+,-$A; %=7 %? I)+,-.K45A*.422*2.)*1K+<*) %&7
%= I)+,-.K45A*.422*2.)*1K+<*) 67 %= MA2-*3+,- 67
'%"#$?&"# ?&"#$>&"#
% "458+,-.9+3:./;*143/1.<455.<*,31* >E7 % "458+,-.9+3:./;*143/1.<455.<*,31* >=7
' #//8+,-.0/1.+,0/1F43+/,.4D/A3.FG./;*143/1./,.3:*.9*D ?'7 ' ())*))+,-./00*1+,-.2*34+5) =!7
? ())*))+,-./00*1+,-.2*34+5) ?'7 ? #//8+,-.0/1.+,0/1F43+/,.4D/A3.FG./;*143/1./,.3:*.9*D '67
= MA2-*3+,- '&7 = "458+,-.9+3:.)45*).;*/;5*.+,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* '67
> J48+,-.4.K/+<*.<455 '&7 > MA2-*3+,- '=7
! @A10+,-.+,.B,3*1,*3 %!7 ! C*45+,-.9+3:.;4;*19/18.+,.D14,<:./00+<* '=7
6 I)+,-./,5+,*.3//5).+,./;*143/1.9*D.)+3*) %!7 6 I)+,-./,5+,*.3//5).+,./;*143/1.9*D.)+3*) '?7
L C*45+,-.9+3:.;4;*19/18.+,.D14,<:./00+<* %=7 L @A10+,-.+,.B,3*1,*3 ''7
E @*,2+,-.@J@ %%7 E I)+,-.K45A*.422*2.)*1K+<*) '%7
%& "458+,-.9+3:.)45*).;*/;5*.+,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* E7 %& J48+,-.4.K/+<*.<455 %L7
%% H+,2+,-.4,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* >7 %% H+,2+,-.4,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* %?7
%' I)+,-.K45A*.422*2.)*1K+<*) >7 %' @*,2+,-.@J@ %&7
%? N4G+,-.D+55) '7 %? N4G+,-.D+55) !7
%= "/;;+,-$A; &7 %= "/;;+,-$A; =7
O>&"#
% "458+,-.9+3:./;*143/1.<455.<*,31* =E7
' ())*))+,-./00*1+,-.2*34+5) ==7
? MA2-*3+,- ?=7
= #//8+,-.0/1.+,0/1F43+/,.4D/A3.FG./;*143/1./,.3:*.9*D ?&7
> I)+,-.K45A*.422*2.)*1K+<*) 'E7
! "458+,-.9+3:.)45*).;*/;5*.+,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* 'E7
6 @A10+,-.+,.B,3*1,*3 ''7
L C*45+,-.9+3:.;4;*19/18.+,.D14,<:./00+<* %!7
E I)+,-./,5+,*.3//5).+,./;*143/1.9*D.)+3*) %!7
%& J48+,-.4.K/+<*.<455 %'7
%% N4G+,-.D+55) %%7
%' H+,2+,-.4,./;*143/1.D14,<:./00+<* 67
%? @*,2+,-.@J@ 67
%= "/;;+,-$A; 67
66



Figure 436: Q5 and its overall agreement scores
Research indicated that when respondents have a trouble with their mobile
operators they either call the call centre or go online and look for solution (See
Figure 436). However, when demographic characteristics are examined it is
observed that, agreement scores of these two options vary among respondents
in different demographic characteristic groups.


Figure 437: Agreement scores of Q5 distributed to age groups
The older the respondents, the more they are prone to call call centre
when they encounter a problem associated with their mobile operator (See
Figure 437).

On the contrary of other respondents, respondents in 18-24 year age group
prefer to ask people around them when they encounter a problem. Most
possible reason of this is that the respondents in 18-24 year age group are
in broader and stronger social communities such as classmates.

!"# $%&'()*+(%,-&(,(./*+01&(23.%()*+/(4*031&(*5&/,.*/(2%,.(6*()*+(*7.&'(6*8
!
"
#
$
%
&
"
'
(
%
&
"
$
(
%
!
"
)
*
%
!"!!#
!"$!#
!"%!#
!"&!#
!"'!#
("!!#
("$!#
("%!#
("&!#
("'!#
$"!!#
+%,-..%/012-3/2%,-..%
,14321%
+%5/%3/%/012-3/2%
62-4,7%/8,1%
+%-9:%01/0.1%-2/;4<%
=1%
+%5/%/4.>41%-4<%.//:%
?/2%9/.;@/4%
1
.
3
3

0
.
8
3

1
.
0
1

1
.
7
4

2
.
0
3

-
0
.
2
4

-
0
.
0
5

1
.
5
5

2
.
7
5

-
0
.
1
9

-
0
.
4
4

1
.
4
4

2
.
6
5

0
.
5
9

-
0
.
0
6

1
.
8
2

!"#$$%
!$#&$%
$#$$%
$#&$%
"#$$%
"#&$%
'#$$%
'#&$%
(#$$%
I ca|| operator ca|| centre I go to operator branch omce I ask peop|e around me I go on||ne and |ook for so|unon
18 - 24 24 - 30 30 - 45 45 - 55
67
Similarly, respondents in 18-24 and 45-55 year age group prefer to go to
operator branch offices more than other respondents when they encounter
a problem.


Figure 438: Agreement scores of Q5 distributed to gender
It is observed that female respondents prefer to go to operator branch
offices significantly more than male respondents when they encounter a
problem (See Figure 438).


Figure 439: Agreement scores of Q5 distributed to education level
University graduate respondents prefer to ask for the solution of their
problems to people around them significantly more than other respondents
(See Figure 439).

On the contrary of other respondents, respondents in higher degree
education level group do not prefer to go to operator branch offices and
solve their problems in other ways.

1
.
9
4

-
0
.
0
3

0
.
2
3

1
.
5
5

1
.
7
3

0
.
5
1

0
.
4
7

1
.
7
2

!"#$"%
"#""%
"#$"%
&#""%
&#$"%
'#""%
'#$"%
I ca|| operator ca||
centre
I go to operator
branch omce
I ask peop|e around
me
I go on||ne and |ook
for so|unon
Ma|e Iema|e
1
.
9
0

0
.
1
9

-
0
.
1
0

1
.
5
2

1
.
0
7

0
.
5
1

1
.
0
6

1
.
6
0

2
.
3
6

0
.
3
1

0
.
0
9

1
.
6
1

1
.
9
5

-
0
.
4
2

-
0
.
1
8

1
.
8
7

!"#$$%
!$#&$%
$#$$%
$#&$%
"#$$%
"#&$%
'#$$%
'#&$%
I ca|| operator ca|| centre I go to operator branch omce I ask peop|e around me I go on||ne and |ook for so|unon
n|gh 5choo| Graduate Un|vers|ty 5tudent Un|vers|ty Graduate (8A, 85) n|gher Degree (M5, MA, hD)
68

Figure 440: Agreement scores of Q5 distributed to monthly spending
Research indicated that, the higher the monthly mobile telecom spending
of respondents, the more they prefer to call operator call centres to solve a
problem rather than using alternative ways (See Figure 440).

Research also indicated that, the higher the monthly mobile telecom
spending of respondents, the less they prefer to go to operator branch
offices to solve a problem. A similar case is partially observed for the
respondents who choose to ask people around when they encounter a
problem.

























!
"
#
$
%
!
"
&
'
% (
"
)
(
%
(
"
!
!
% (
"
*
*
%
!
"
'
)
%
!
"
&
*
%
(
"
+
#
%
(
"
'
'
%
!
"
'
&
%
!
"
*
'
%
(
"
+
&
%
)
"
!
*
%
!
"
!
+
%
!
"
!
'
%
(
"
,
,
%
)
"
)
'
%
-
!
"
(
#
%
!
"
)
)
%
(
"
#
+
%
!"#$"%
"#""%
"#$"%
&#""%
&#$"%
'#""%
'#$"%
.%/011%23450625%/011%/47654% .%82%62%23450625%9507/:%2;/4% .%0<=%342314%052>7?%@4% .%82%271A74%07?%122=%B25%<21>C27%
'DE-(!DE% ((DE-)!DE% )(DE-*!DE% *!DE-#!DE% F#!DE%
69
4.6.3. Section-3: Post-Experience Phase of the HCE






Figure 441: Q6 and its response analysis
In overall, 98% of respondents indicated that somehow they share their
bad experiences with other people (See Figure 441).

Research showed that 67% of respondents definitely would tell their story
to other people if they had a bad experience with their mobile operators,
whereas 31% of respondents choose to talk about it if someone asks.

There are not much of meaningful differences between responses of
respondents in different demographic characteristics groups as they all
show consistency with the overall results.









!"# $%&'()*+(%,-(,(.,-(&/0&12&'3&(425%()*+1(6*.27&(*0&1,5*1(4%,5(-*()*+(*85&'(-*9
! "#$%&'(')%*+#)%**#,-./)#)0'1#).#2%.2*%#,3./($#4%
5 "#),*6#,-./)#')#'&#1.4%.(%#,161
7 "#(%8%3#),*6#,-./)#')
9:;
!"#$ %&#$ '#$
(#$ )(#$ &((#$
*+,-.//$
0$ 1$ 2$
!3#$
"'#$
)!#$
)4#$
%!#$
'!#$
%5#$
%)#$
(#$
'#$
!#$
!#$
(#$ '(#$ 3(#$ !(#$ 5(#$ &((#$
&5$6$'3$
'3$6$%($
%($6$3)$
3)$6$))$
!)#$
!4#$
%%#$
%&#$
%#$
&#$
(#$ '(#$ 3(#$ !(#$ 5(#$ &((#$
7./,$
8,9./,$
57
67
71
61
43
33
27
37
0
0
3
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|vers|ty Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree (M5, MA, hD)
64
64
59
71
70
36
36
41
28
26
0
0
0
1
4
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
70






Figure 442: Q7 and its response analysis
In overall, 98% of respondents indicated that they somehow share their
good experiences with other people (See Figure 442).

Research showed that 55% of respondents definitely would tell their story
to other people if they had a good experience with their mobile operators,
whereas 43% of respondents choose to talk about it if someone asks.

Except respondents in 45-55 year age group, the older the respondents the
more they prefer to talk about their good experiences with their mobile
operators.

Similarly, the higher the monthly mobile telecom spending of the
respondents the more they prefer to talk about their good experiences.









!"# $%&'()*+(%,-(,(.**-(&/0&12&'3&(425%()*+1(6*728&(*0&1,5*1(4%,5(-*()*+(*95&'(-*:
! "#$%&'(')%*+#)%**#,-./)#)0'1#).#2%.2*%#,3./($#4%
5 "#),*6#,-./)#')#'&#1.4%.(%#,161
7 "#(%8%3#),*6#,-./)#')
9:;
!!"# $%"# &"#
'"# !'"# (''"#
)*+,-..#
/# 0# 1#
$$"#
2%"#
3!"#
!%"#
!$"#
%2"#
&!"#
$("#
&"#
("#
'"#
2"#
'"# &'"# $'"# 2'"# 4'"# (''"#
(4#5#&$#
&$#5#%'#
%'#5#$!#
$!#5#!!#
!%"#
!3"#
$$"#
$&"#
%"#
("#
'"# &'"# $'"# 2'"# 4'"# (''"#
6-.+#
7+8-.+#
62
49
60
53
38
49
38
47
0
1
3
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
n|gh 5choo| Graduate
Un|vers|ty 5tudent
Un|vers|ty Graduate (8A, 85)
n|gher Degree (M5, MA, hD)
36
55
48
54
66
64
40
52
45
33
0
5
0
1
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
61L-101L
111L-201L
211L-301L
301L-501L
+501L
71





Figure 443: Q8, its sub-questions and overall agreement scores
Q8 is aimed at revealing the emotions that respondents would like to associate
with their mobile operators (See Figure 443). Findings are as follows:

The feeling of trust is the most desired feeling which is to associate
with mobile operators. Research indicated that respondents want to be
able to rely on and trust their mobile operators at all times (Q8.2).
Research also revealed that respondents do not want to get frustrated no
matter what, as the feeling of frustration often leads to a memorable bad
experience (Q8.9).
Happiness is a very strong feeling that can be used to develop good
experiences on. Research indicated that respondents can tolerate bad
experiences to some extent as long as they consider themselves happy
within their total experience with their mobile operators (Q8.1).
C.8
Conslderlna vour experlence wlLh vour moblle operaLor, whlch feellnas a moblle operaLor
should evoke?
C.8.1 1here can be some problems buL mv happlness ln LoLal ls verv lmporLanL
C.8.2 l should be able Lo LrusL mv moblle operaLor aL all Lhe Llme (l.e. coveraae lssues)
C.8.3 Mv operaLor musL exclLe me (e.a. feellna exclLed when waLchlna 1v ads of vour operaLor)
C.8.4 l musL feel LhaL mv operaLor cares me (e.a. sendlna alfL SMSs on blrLhdavs)
C.8.3 Mv operaLor musL noL harm mv soclal sLaLus, furLhermore lL musL conLrlbuLe Lo lL
C.8.6 l would llke Lo Lhlnk LhaL Lhe offerlnas of mv operaLor are aood ln value
C.8.7 Mv operaLor musL offer me new opLlons all Lhe Llme
C.8.8 l musL feel enLerLalned when uslna Lhe servlces of mv operaLor
C.8.9 1he mosL lmporLanL Lhlna ls LhaL l musL noL aeL frusLraLed wlLh mv operaLor
C.8.10 l musL proud of mv operaLor and LhaL l can be able Lo Lhlnk LhaL l made Lhe rlahL cholce
!
"
#
#
$
!
"
%
#
$
!
"
!
&
$
!
"
&
'
$
&
"
'
(
$
&
"
'
%
$
&
"
)
&
$
&
"
!
)
$
*
"
'
%
$
+
*
"
&
*
$
!"#$"%
"#""%
"#$"%
&#""%
&#$"%
'#""%
'#$"%
(#""%
'"!$ '",$ '"&$ '")$ '"($ '"-$ '"&*$ '"'$ '"%$ '"#$
72
The feeling of economy comes after the feelings mentioned above.
Respondents also desire to feel that the business they do with mobile
operators is economic and good in value (Q8.6).
Interestingly, despite the fact that all mobile operators in Turkey has built
their communication strategies on the feelings of entertainment and
excitement, respondents indicated that they do no value the feelings of
entertainment and excitement as much as other feelings mentioned
above (Q8.8, Q8.3).
Research also revealed that, respondents do not think that their mobile
operator has an effect on their social status, which may provide an
advantage or disadvantage to them (Q8.5).


Figure 444: Agreement scores of Q8 distributed to age groups
As seen in Figure 444, the older the respondents, the more they can
tolerate bad experiences to some extent as long as they consider
themselves happy within their total experience with their mobile operators
(Q8.1). A similar case is observed for the feelings of trust (Q8.2) and
caring (Q8.4).


Figure 445: Agreement scores of Q8 distributed to gender
!
"
#
$
%
!
"
$
&
%
'
"
#
#
%
'
"
&
(
%
#
"
#
$
%
!
"
!
$
%
'
"
)
&
%
'
"
*
)
%
!
"
!
&
%
'
"
*
&
%
!
"
!
*
% !
"
+
*
%
#
"
+
$
%
'
"
&
'
%
,
#
"
'
)
%
!
"
#
)
%
'
"
+
+
%
'
"
#
+
%
!
"
$
&
%
'
"
(
#
%
!
"
(
#
%
!
"
&
(
%
'
"
'
$
%
!
"
(
#
%
,
#
"
!
(
%
!
"
'
)
%
!
"
!
(
%
'
"
*
*
%
!
"
&
(
%
!
"
$
-
% !
"
&
+
%
!
"
-
-
%
#
"
)
*
%
!
"
(
$
%
,
#
"
'
!
%
!
"
(
$
%
!
"
*
'
%
'
"
#
+
%
!
"
!
)
%
!
"
*
&
%
!"#$"%
"#""%
"#$"%
&#""%
&#$"%
'#""%
'#$"%
(#""%
(#$"%
-"'% -"!% -"$% -"*% -"(% -"+% -"&% -"-% -")% -"'#%
'-%,%!*% !*%,%$#% $#%,%*(% *(%,%((%
2
.
0
9
2
.
4
7

0
.
7
2

1
.
8
1

-
0
.
0
7

2
.
1
4

1
.
7
5

1
.
1
0

2
.
4
0

1
.
4
8

2
.
3
1
2
.
6
3

0
.
9
4

1
.
8
5

-
0
.
1
3

2
.
2
2

1
.
9
8

1
.
4
0

2
.
3
1

1
.
7
3

!"#$"%
"#""%
"#$"%
&#""%
&#$"%
'#""%
'#$"%
(#""%
8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10
Ma|e Iema|e
73
In overall, female respondents rely on feelings more than male
respondents (See Figure 445). Aside from that there are not much of
meaningful opinion variances between male and female respondents.


Figure 446: Agreement scores of Q8 distributed to education level
University graduate respondents think that their mobile operator must
have a positive effect on their social status on the contrary of other
respondents (Q8.5) (See Figure 446).


Figure 447: Agreement scores of Q8 distributed to monthly spending
Respondents in 6TL-10TL and +50TL spending groups think that their
mobile operator must have a positive effect on their social status on the
contrary of other respondents (Q8.5) (See Figure 447).









2
.
3
8

2
.
4
3

0
.
6
7

1
.
8
6

-
0
.
3
8

2
.
1
0

2
.
0
5

1
.
2
9

2
.
2
4

2
.
1
9

1
.
9
4
2
.
3
5

1
.
0
4

1
.
8
1

-
0
.
2
5

2
.
1
0

2
.
0
1

1
.
4
5

2
.
1
7

1
.
3
1

2
.
3
9

2
.
6
9

0
.
8
7

2
.
0
0

0
.
1
3

2
.
2
6

1
.
8
9

1
.
3
1

2
.
4
9

1
.
8
2
2
.
1
8

2
.
6
8

0
.
3
7

1
.
3
7

-
0
.
2
6

2
.
2
1

1
.
4
2

0
.
6
8

2
.
4
2

1
.
3
4

!"#$$%
!$#&$%
$#$$%
$#&$%
"#$$%
"#&$%
'#$$%
'#&$%
(#$$%
8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10
n|gh 5choo| Graduate Un|vers|ty 5tudent Un|vers|ty Graduate (8A, 85) n|gher Degree (M5, MA, hD)
!
"
!
#
$
#
"
%
&
$
'
"
(
)
$
#
"
(
#
$
'
"
)
*
$ #
"
*
&
$
!
"
#
+
$
#
"
,
(
$
!
"
,
'
$
#
"
%
&
$
#
"
)
'
$
!
"
,
,
$
'
"
(
)
$
#
"
(
#
$
-
'
"
,
(
$
!
"
,
,
$
!
"
*
*
$
#
"
,
!
$
!
"
+
,
$
#
"
#
!
$
!
"
+
%
$
!
"
+
#
$
'
"
(
(
$
!
"
#
%
$
-
'
"
*
!
$
!
"
+
,
$
#
"
%
&
$
#
"
,
'
$
!
"
+
%
$
#
"
)
,
$
!
"
!
&
$ !
"
(
&
$
'
"
)
(
$
#
"
%
(
$
-
'
"
!
+
$
!
"
*
!
$
#
"
(
+
$
#
"
#
%
$
!
"
*
!
$
#
"
,
'
$
!
"
#
&
$ !
"
,
&
$
'
"
(
,
$
#
"
&
&
$
'
"
!
&
$
#
"
%
!
$
#
"
(
'
$
'
"
)
)
$
!
"
!
!
$
#
"
(
,
$
!"#$$%
!$#&$%
$#$$%
$#&$%
"#$$%
"#&$%
'#$$%
'#&$%
(#$$%
%"#$ %"!$ %"*$ %"+$ %",$ %"&$ %"($ %"%$ %")$ %"#'$
&./-#'./$ ##./-!'./$ !#./-*'./$ *'./-,'./$ 0,'./$
74
5. Conclusions
In order to design a perfect customer experience a mobile telecom operator
must adopt a holistic approach and start to design its experience from the
beginning that is pre-experience phase of the holistic customer experience. On
the other hand, theoretically a customer experience never ends as its memories
go forever, however in practical terms experiences end in post-experience
phase of the HCE, where various actual experience connected feelings are
evoked.

According to the general concept of the HCE mentioned above, this research
has revealed the customer perceived value across different phases of the HCE
provided by the Turkish mobile operators.

Numerous insights on value patterns of Turkish mobile customers have been
gained from this research study. For the pre-experience phase of the HCE, it is
revealed that customers in which demographic characteristics groups value
which information channels and which factors affect their decisions in general.
For the product/service experience phase of the HCE, the answers of prevalent
discussions in the industry, vague points related with those discussions and
points of conflict among practitioners are revealed such as the conflict of
service quality vs. service price and coverage strength vs. cheap offerings. For
the post-experience phase of the HCE, it is revealed that how do customers
react when they had bad or good experiences with their mobile operators and
which feelings a mobile operator should evoke.

Clearly, through covering all phases of the HCE and providing valuable
insight for each phase of it, this dissertation delivers valuable information on
customer experience and customer value to the managers and other
practitioners working in Turkish mobile telecom industry. Findings and
implications of this dissertation can be used in crafting value propositions,
designing campaigns, targeting desired audiences, choosing promotion
components and many other marketing strategies.

75
On the other hand, there are a few limitations of the research undertaken in the
dissertation. Main limitation of this research is its narrow sample group, which
may fail to represent the actual characteristics of Turkish mobile subscribers.
Although the selected sample size is quite adequate to gather valuable and
useful information, the distribution of demographic groups of the
questionnaire respondents may fail to reflect the actual demographic
distribution of the whole customer base. In addition to that, the research study
was conducted on the Internet, and therefore this is another limitation of this
research as all of its respondents have access to the Internet.

This study was built on the notion of value-in-experience; however further
studies may focus on different aspects of customer experience or customer
value such as touch point management in customer experience designs and
value-in-experience models as an alternative to extant value models. On the
other hand, improving the quality of the results of this study is possible
through using a larger and more precise sampling group, which reflects the
characteristics of the actual customer base of the Turkish mobile telecom
market.

Word Count: 15185

















76
6. Reference List
Abbott, L. (1955), Quality and Competition: An Essay in Economic Theory,
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Allen, C.T., Machleit, K.A. & Kleine, S.S. (1992), A comparison of attitudes
and emotions as predictors of behaviour at diverse levels of behavioural
experience, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 493-504.

Anderson, J.C. & Narus, J.A. (1998), Business Market Management:
Understanding, Creating and Delivering Value, Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.

Arnould, E.J., Pierce, L. & Zinkhan, G.M. (2004), Consumers, 2
nd
edition,
New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Barnes, C., Blake, H. & Pinder, D. (2010), Creating & delivering your value
proposition: Managing customer experience for profit, London: Kogan Page.

Barsky, J. & Nash, L. (2002), Evoking emotion: affective keys to hotel
loyalty, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43, No.
1, pp. 39-46.

Belasco, J.A. & Stayer, R.C. (1993), Flight of the Buffalo, New York, NY:
Warner.

Bitner, M., Faranda, T., Hubbert, R. & Zeithaml, V. (1997), Customer
Contributions and Roles in Service Delivery, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, p 193.

Brady, M.K. & Cronin, J.J. (2001), Some new thoughts on conceptualizing
perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
65, No. 3, pp. 34-49.

77
Butz, H.E. & Goodstein, L.D. (1996), Measuring customer value: gaining the
strategic advantage, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24, pp. 63-77.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online (2011), dictionary.cambridge.org [Online].
Available from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/holistic
[Accessed: 5 May 2011].

Carothers, G.H. & Adams, M. (1991), Competitive advantage through
customer value: the role of value-based strategies, in Stahl, M.J. and Bounds,
G.M. (Eds), Competing Globally through Customer Value: The Management
of Strategic Suprasystems, New York, NY: Quorum Books.

Chang, T., Horng, S. (2010), Conceptualizing and measuring experience
quality: the customers perspective, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 30,
No. 14, pp. 2401-2419.

Christopher, M., Payne, A. & Ballantyne, D. (1991), Relationship Marketing:
Bringing Quality, Customer Service and Marketing Together, Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.

Cullen International (2007), Country Comparative Report, Supply of services
in monitoring of South East Europe Telecommunications services sector and
related aspects, Brussels: Cullen International.

Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. & Hult, G.T.M. (2000), Assessing the effects of
quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions
in service environments, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 193-218.

Hoyer, W.D. & McInnis, D. (2001), Consumer Behaviour, 2
nd
ed., Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.

de Chernatony, L., Harris, F. & DallOlmo Riley, F. (2000), Added value: its
nature, roles and sustainability, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, No.
1/2, pp. 39-54.
78
Huber, F., Herrmann, A. & Morgan, R.E. (2001), Gaining competitive
advantage through customer value oriented management, The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 41-53.

Deloitte (2010), Information and Communication Technologies Industry
Report, Ankara: Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Investment Support and
Promotion Agency

Dewey, J. (1963), Experience and Education, New York, NY: Macmillan
Publishing.

Doyle, P. (1989), Building successful brands: the strategic objectives, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 77-95.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Jackson, P.R. (2008), Management
Research 3
rd
ed., London: Sage Publications.

Eriksson P., Kovalainen A. (2008), Qualitative Methods in Business Research,
United Kingdom: Sage Publications.

Flowers, (2009), Research Philosophies Importance and Relevance, Leading
Learning and Change Cranfield School of Management, Issue 1, pp. 1-5.

Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and their brands: developing relationship
theory in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4,
pp. 343-373.

Gainer, B. (1995), Ritual and Relationships: Interpersonal Influences on
Shared Consumption, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 253-
260.

Gale, B.Y. (1994), Managing Customer Value: Creating Quality and Service
that Customers Can See, New York, NY: The Free Press.

79
Gentile, C., Spiller, N. & Noci, G. (2007), How to Sustain the Customer
Experience: An Overview of Experience Components that Co-create Value
With the Customer, European Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 395-
410.

Gerpott, T.J., Rams, W. & Schindler, A. (2001), Customer retention, loyalty,
and satisfaction in the German mobile cellular telecommunications market,
Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 249-69.

Gladwell, M. (2000), The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big
Difference, New York, NY: Little Brown and Co..

Gordon, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C. and Gronhaug, K. (2001), Qualitative
Marketing Research, London: Sage Publications.

Grene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J. & Graham, W.F. (1989), Toward a Conceptual
Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Design, Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp-255-274.

Gronroos, C. (1997), Value-driven relational marketing: from products to
resources and competencies, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, No.
5, pp. 407-19.

Gronroos, C. (2000), Service Management and Marketing: A Customer
Relationship Approach, 2
nd
ed., Chichester: Wiley.

Groth, J.C. (1994), The exclusive value principle: a concept for marketing,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 8-18.

Gupta, S. & Vajic, M. (2000), The contextual and dialectical nature of
experiences, in Fitzsimmons, J.A. and Fitzsimmons, M.J. (Eds), New Service
Development: Creating Memorable Experiences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

80
Gutman, J. (1982), A means-end chain model based on consumer
categorisation processes, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 60-72.

Gutman, J. (1991), Exploring the nature of linkages between consequences
and values, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, pp. 143-8.

Harris, R., Harris, K. & Baron, S. (2003), Theatrical service experiences:
dramatic script development with employees, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 184-99.

Holbrook, M.B. (2000), The Millennial Consumer in the Texts of Our Times:
Experience and Entertainment, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20, No. 2,
pp. 178-192.

Holbrook, M.B. (2006), Reply to Bradshaw, McDonagh, and Marshall: turn
off the bubble machine, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 84-8.

Holbrook, M.B. and Schindler, R.M. (2003), Nostalgic bonding: Exploring the
role of nostalgia in the consumption experience, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp 107-127.

Horovitz, J. (2000), The Seven Secrets of Service Strategy, Harlow: Financial
Times-Prentice Hall.

ICTA (2011), Information and Communication Technologies Authority,
Quarterly Market Data Report 2010 Q4 on Turkish Electronic
Communication Industry, Ankara: ICTA.

Jaworski, B.J. & Kohli, A.K. (1993), Market orientation: antecedents and
consequences, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 53-70.

Joiner, B.L. (1994), Fourth Generation Management: The New Business
Consciousness, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

81
Kaufman, J.J. (1998), Value Management: Creating Competitive Advantage,
Best Management Practices Series, Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.

Khalifa, A.S. (2004), Customer value: a review of recent literature and an
integrative configuration, Management Decision, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 645-666.

Kotler, P. (1996), Marketing Management, 9
th
ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Kozinets, R. V. (1999), E-Tribalized Marketing: The Strategic Implications of
Virtual Communities of Consumption, European Management Journal, Vol.
17, No. 3, pp. 252-64.

Lanning, M.J. (1998), Delivering Profitable Value: A Revolutionary
Framework to Accelerate Growth, Generate Wealth, and Rediscover the Heart
of Business, Reading, MA.: Perseus Books.

Levitt, T. (1980), Marketing success through differentiation of anything,
Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 83-91.

Lovelock, C.H. (1983), Classifying services to gain strategic marketing
insight, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No. Summer, pp. 9-20.

Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. & OBrien, M. (2007), Competing though service:
Insights from service-dominant logic, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83, no. 1, pp.
5-18.

McKenna, R. (2002), Total Access: Giving Customers What They Want in an
Anytime, Anywhere World, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Maclaran, P. and Brown, S. (2005), The centre cannot hold: consuming the
utopian marketplace, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 311-
323.

82
Mascarenhas, O.A., Kesavan, R. & Bernacchi, M. (2006), Lasting customer
loyalty: a total customer experience approach, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 397-405.

Mattila, A.S. (2001), Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty, Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 73-9.

McKean, J. (2002), Customers are People: The Human Touch, Chichester:
Wiley.

McQuarrie, F.E. (2006), The Market Research Toolbox: A Concise Guide for
Beginners 2
nd
ed., United Kingdom: Sage Publications.

Monroe, K.B. (1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 2
nd
ed., London:
McGraw-Hill.

Naumann, E. (1995), Creating Customer Value: The Path to Sustainable
Competitive Advantage, Cincinnati, OH: Thomson Executive Press.

NC3R
S
, National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction in
Animals Research. (2006). Why do a pilot study?. London: National Centre for
the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction in Animals Research.

Neuman, W.L. (2000), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches 5
th
ed., London: Allyn & Bacon.

Niglas, K. (2004), The Combined Use of Qualitative and Quantitative
Methods in Educational Research, In European Conference on Educational
Research, Edinburgh, 20-23 September 2000, Leeds: University of Leeds.

Normann, R. & Ramirez, R. (1993), From Value Chain to Value
Constellation: Designing Interactive Strategy, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
71, No. 4, pp. 6577.

83
Oliver, R.L. (1993), Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the
satisfaction response, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.
418-30.

Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer,
New York, NY: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Olson, J. & Reynolds, T.J. (1983), Understanding consumer cognitive
structures: implications for advertising strategy, in Percy, L. and Woodside,
A. (Eds), Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.

OShaughnessy, J. and OShaughnessy, N.J. (2003), The Marketing Power of
Emotion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Palmer, A. (2010), Customer experience management: a critical review of an
emerging idea, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 196-208.

Parolini, C. (1999), The Value Net: A Tool for Competitive Strategy,
Chichester: John Wiley.

Payne, A., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P. (2008), Managing the co-creation of
value, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, pp. 83-96

Pealoza, L. & Venkatesh, A. (2006), Further evolving the new dominant
logic of marketing, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 299-316.

Peter, J.P. & Olson, J.C. (1987), Consumer Behavior Marketing Strategy
Perspectives, Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Peter, J.P. & Olson, J.C. (1990), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy,
2
nd
ed., Homewood, IL: Irwin.

84
Piercy, N.F. & Morgan, N.A. (1997), The impact of lean thinking and the lean
enterprise on marketing: threat or synergy?, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 13, pp. 679-93.

Pine, B.J. & Gilmore, J.H. (1998), Welcome to the experience economy,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 97-106.

Poulsson, S. & Kale, S. (2004), The Experience Economy and Commercial
Experiences, The Marketing Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp 267-77.

Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2000), Co-opting Customer Competence,
Harvard Business Review, 78 (January February), pp. 7987.

Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J. & Deibler, S.L. (1995), Consumers emotional
responses to service encounters: the influence of the service provider,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 34-
63.

Ramaswamy, V. (2008), Co-creating value through customers experiences:
the Nike case, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 9-14.

Richins, M.L. (1997), Measuring emotions in consumption experience,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 127-46.

Rokeach, M.J. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, New York, NY: The
Free Press.

Rust, R.T. & Oliver, R.L. (2000), Should we delight the customer?, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 86-94.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for
Business Students 4
th
ed., Essex: Prentice Hall.

85
Schmitt, B. (1999a), Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers to Sense,
Feel, Think, Act and Relate to Your Company and Brands, New York, NY:
Free Press.

Schmitt, B. (1999b), Experiential Marketing, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 15, No. 1-3, pp. 53-67.

Schneider, B. & Bowen, D.E. (1999), Understanding customer delight and
outrage, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 35-45.

Shaw, C. & Ivens, J. (2002), Building Great Customer Experiences, New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sheth, J.N., Newman, B. & Gross, B.L. (1991), Why we buy what we buy: a
theory of consumption values, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, pp. 159-
70.

Smith, S. & Wheeler, J. (2002), Managing the Customer Experience, London:
FT Prentice-Hall.

Thompson, H. (1998), What do your customer really want?, Journal of
Business strategy, July-August, pp. 17-21.

Treacy, M. & Wiersima, F. (1995), The Discipline of Market Leaders,
London: Harper Collins.

TSI (2011), Turkish Statistics Institute 2010, Address Based Registration
System 2010 Results, Ankara: TSI.

Tynan, C. & McKechnie, S. (2008), Co-Creating Value through Experience
Marketing. In Academy of Marketing Conference. Aberdeen: 7th-10th July
2008.

86
Tynan, C. & McKechnie, S. (2009), Experience marketing: a review and
reassessment, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 25, No. 5-6, pp. 501-
517.

Turnbull, J. (2009), Customer Value-in-Experience: Theoretical foundation
and research agenda. In ANZMAC 2009, Sustainable Management &
Marketing Conference. Melbourne, 30 November 4 December 2009. pp. 1-8.

UCCET (2009), The Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey
Turkish Telecommunication Market Report, Ankara: UCCET Publications.

Upton, G. & Cook, I. (1997), Understanding Statistics, London: Oxford
University Press.

Vargo, S. & Lush, R. (2004), Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, January, pp. 1-17.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2006), Service-dominant logic: What it is, what
it is not, what it might be, in R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service
dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions, pp. 4356,
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Vargo, S. & Lush, R. (2008), Service-dominant logic: continuing the
evolution, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 1-
10.

Webster, F. (1994), Market-driven Management, New York, NY: Wiley.

Wilkie, W.L. (1994), Consumer Behavior, 3
rd
ed., New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons.

Woodruff, R.B. (1997), Customer value: the next source for competitive
advantage, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.
139-53.
87
Woodruff, R.B. & Gardial, S. (1996), Know Your Customer: New Approaches
to Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction, Oxford: Blackwell.

Zeithaml, V. (1988), Consumer perception of price, quality and value: a
means-end model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52,
July, pp. 2-2




























88
7. Appendices
7.1. Appendix-I
Key Marketing Metrics of Turkish Mobile Operators
Number of Subscribers
As of 2010 Q4, Turkcell has 33.48 millions, Vodafone has 16.68 millions and
Avea has 11.62 millions of subscribers. Since 2009 Q1, approximately 3
millions of subscribers churned from Turkcell either by porting their mobile
numbers into other service providers or by cancelling their active lines.
Similarly Avea has lost nearly 1 millions of subscribers because of the same
reasons. According to data provided by service providers, only Vodafone has
increased its number of subscriber in total since 2009 Q1 (See Figure 71).


Figure 71: Number of subscribers of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)
Market Shares of TMOs
Market share is one of the most important metrics in mobile telecom industry
as it is in other industries. Market share in mobile telecom can be measured in
different ways such as market share in terms of number of subscribers,
traffic size and revenue. Each of these approaches provides a performance
overview of the company in which ways it needs to be measured. It is desired
that these different market shares to be balanced. For example, if a mobile
operator has a 20% market share, the traffic share and the revenue share of
that specific mobile operator is expected to be around 20%. A higher revenue
share than traffic share and subscriber share indicates that the service provider
!"#$%& !"#!$& !"#%%&
!'#!(&
!$#)"& !!#*!& !!#*)& !!#$+&
,'#$%& ,$#+(&
,'#"%& ,'#'(& ,'#()& ,"#,!& ,"#'$& ,"#"+&
,)#"%& ,)#$%& ,)#%"& ,,#+!& ,,#"'& ,,#$(& ,,#$!& ,,#")&
"$#$%&
"!#",& "!#""&
")#((&
",#"!& ",#'!& ",#+*& ",#(+&
!"!!#
$!"!!#
%!"!!#
&!"!!#
'!"!!#
(!"!!#
)!"!!#
*!"!!#
)%%*-.,& )%%*-.)& )%%*-.!& )%%*-.$& )%,%-.,& )%,%-.)& )%,%-.!& )%,%-.$&
/
0
1
2
3
4
&
5
6
&
7
0
2
8
9
4
:
2
3
4
8
&
;
1
:
<
<
:
5
=
8
>
&
?04@93<<& A5BC65=3& DE3C& ?5FC<&
89
is either operating abnormally well or the competitive environment in the
market is still not fair enough for competitors.
In Turkish mobile market, a similar case was observed before 2010. In 2009
Q1, Turkcell was holding nearly the 68% of the revenue share in the market
whereas it had 45% of traffic share and 57% of subscribers share (See Figure
72). In response to this case, other service providers were focused on to get
more of revenue share by using their offerings which aimed at acquiring more
customers by enabling them to talk more and that accordingly resulted in
increase of their traffic share (See Figure 73).

However, as regulations implemented in 2009 and 2010, this unfair case
altered in favour of Vodafone and Avea. By 2010 Q4, the balance of
subscriber, traffic and revenue shares of service providers are almost aligned
with each other. Today, Turkcell holds 55% of revenue share whereas it has
48% of traffic share and 54% of subscriber share (See Figure 74).


Figure 72: Subscriber shares of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)


Figure 73: Traffic shares of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)
56.52 57.13 56.55 56.35 55.59 55.14 54.81 54.19
23.91 23.38 24.51 24.80 25.51 26.21 26.72 27.00
19.57 19.49 18.94 18.85 18.90 18.64 18.47 18.81
!"!!#$
%!"!!#$
&!"!!#$
'!"!!#$
(!"!!#$
)!"!!#$
*!"!!#$
+!"!!#$
,!"!!#$
-!"!!#$
%!!"!!#$
2009-C1 2009-C2 2009-C3 2009-C4 2010-C1 2010-C2 2010-C3 2010-C4
1urkce|| Vodafone Avea
45.21
42.38 43.46
45.70 44.79 44.82
48.94 47.90
26.09
26.02
26.41
28.12 30.24 31.26
29.70 30.28
28.70
31.60 30.13
26.18 24.97 23.92
21.36 21.82
!"!!#$
%!"!!#$
&!"!!#$
'!"!!#$
(!"!!#$
)!"!!#$
*!"!!#$
+!"!!#$
,!"!!#$
-!"!!#$
%!!"!!#$
2009-C1 2009-C2 2009-C3 2009-C4 2010-C1 2010-C2 2010-C3 2010-C4
1urkce|| Vodafone Avea
90

Figure 74: Revenue shares of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)
Churn Rates of TMOs
Churn rate is a term that is used to measure the number of customers who
decide to stop using a service offered by one company and to use another
company. Usually it is calculated monthly, quarterly and yearly. In mobile
telecom, churn rate is calculated by dividing the number of customers who
stopped using the service in a desired period of time by the average number of
active subscribers in that specific time period.

Churn rate is one of the most important marketing metrics in mature mobile
telecom markets as it provides vital information on how competitive the
mobile operator is. On the other hand, churn rate also indicates the satisfaction
level of customers of the whole business offerings provided by the service
provider and therefore it is a dependable measure for customer experience.

In Turkish mobile telecom market, Turkcell has the lowest and the most stable
churn rate, which is around 3%. However, since the launch of MNP in 2008,
Turkcells churn rate has showed a significant increase because of the ported-
out customers (customers who transferred their mobile numbers to other
service providers after MNP).

Today, despite the volatile churn rate trends of Avea and Vodafone in past
quarters, they approximately have the same churn rate, which is slightly higher
than Turkcell (See Figure 75).

67.37
64.27 62.70 63.29
59.64 58.23 56.37 54.64
16.91
18.23
18.96 19.02
21.21 22.92 25.23
26.13
15.72 17.50 18.34 17.69 19.15 18.85 18.40 19.23
!"!!#$
%!"!!#$
&!"!!#$
'!"!!#$
(!"!!#$
)!"!!#$
*!"!!#$
+!"!!#$
,!"!!#$
-!"!!#$
%!!"!!#$
2009-C1 2009-C2 2009-C3 2009-C4 2010-C1 2010-C2 2010-C3 2010-C4
1urkce|| Vodafone Avea
91

Figure 75: Churn rates of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)
MoUs (Minutes of Usage) of TMOs
As mentioned before in this paper, MoU is a commonly used metric to
measure the mobile phone usage and defined as the average voice call duration
of an average subscriber in a month. A high level of MoU does not indicate a
well performing marketing strategy; it only shows the call duration of an
average subscriber in a month. However it is important that it implies how
aggressive the voice offerings of a mobile operator is and how its received
traffic is connected with and depending on the other operators. In Turkish
mobile telecom market, the youngest operator Avea has the highest MoU of
276 minutes whereas Turkcell has 198 minutes and Vodafone has 264 minutes
(See Figure 76).


Figure 76: MoUs of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)
ARPUs (Average Revenue per User) of TMOs
ARPU is one of the key metrics in mobile telecom, which provides
information on operators revenue generating ability from its subscriber base.
The higher the ARPU, the higher the revenue generated from the subscriber
4.64
3.79
4.43
4.30
3.83
4.15
2.94
3.24
3.46
!"#$%&
'"$$%&
'"!$%&
'"($%&
'")$%&
'"#$%&
("$$%&
("!$%&
("($%&
(")$%&
Cct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10
Avea
Vodafone
1urkce||
!""#
!$%#
!"$#
&'!#
&((#
&'(#
&%)#
&)(#
&%'#
!"
#!"
$!!"
$#!"
%!!"
%#!"
&!!"
*+,-!.# /01-!.# 23+-!.#
4
5
6
7
,
3
8
#
97:;+3<<# =0>?@063# A13?#
92
base. ARPU is usually calculated for prepaid (pay-as-you-go) and post-paid
(contract-based) subscribers separately. In Turkish mobile telecom market, as
of December 2010, Turkcell and Avea have approximately equal average
ARPUs of 19 TL whereas Vodafone is slightly lower with an ARPU of 18 TL
(See Figure 77). Although small variances of ARPU seem to be insignificant,
with a subscriber base of millions of customer, even a small decimal variance
can lead to a serious financial difference. Naturally, prepaid ARPU is lower
than the post-paid ARPU as price of contract-based offerings are usually
higher than the monthly spending of a pay-as-you-go subscriber (See Figure
78 and Figure 79).


Figure 77: Average ARPUs of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)

Figure 78: Prepaid ARPUs of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)

Figure 79: Post-paid ARPUs of TMOs (ICTA, 2011)

19.2
18.8
19.2
18.2
17.8
18
19.6
19
19.1
!"#$%
!&%
!&#$%
!'%
!'#$%
!(%
!(#$%
)*%
Cct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10
k
e
v
e
n
u
e

p
e
r

U
s
e
r

(
1
L
)

1urkce|| Vodafone Avea
!"#$% !"#&%
!!%
!'%
!(#!% !(#!%
!!#(%
!"#)%
!!#!%
!"
#"
$"
%"
&"
'!"
'#"
'$"
*+,-!"% ./0-!"% 12+-!"%
3
2
0
2
4
5
2
%
6
2
7
%
8
9
2
7
%
:
;
<
=
%
;57>+2??% @/ABC/42% D02B%
39.7
38.2 38.3
36.7 37 36.9
31 31.2
30.4
!"
#"
$!"
$#"
%!"
%#"
&!"
&#"
'!"
'#"
Cct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10
k
e
v
e
n
u
e

p
e
r

U
s
e
r

(
1
L
)

1urkce|| Vodafone Avea
93
7.2. Appendix-II
Common Financial Ratios Used in Mobile Telecom

Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) is the net profit before interest and taxes
divided by the total capital employed. ROCE shows how well the employed
capital is being used to generate revenue.

Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA)
margin is the EBITDA divided by operating revenues. EBITDA margin
provides information on the cash income of the operator and is expected to
differ between 30-50% for profitable mobile telecommunication service
providers (ICTA, 2011).

Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT) margin is the EBIT divided by
operating revenues. EBIT shows the profit generating ability of the service
provider.























94
7.3. Appendix-III
Pine and Gilmores (1998) experience design principles

1-Theme the experience: Offering the service through a theme. (e.g. theme
restaurants such as Hard Rock Caf and Starbucks, theme shopping malls
such as Forum Shops in Las Vegas which offers an ancient Roman experience)

2-Harmonize impressions with positive cues: Creating positive cues that
make impressions, which create the experience in the customers mind. (i.e.
when a restaurant host says, Your table is ready no particular cue is given.
But when a Rainforest Caf host declared, Your adventure is about to begin
it sets the stage for something special)

3-Eliminate negative cues: Eliminating negative cues, which diminish,
contradict or distract from the theme. (i.e. trash bins at fast-food facilities
typically display a Thank You sign and it is a cue to customers to bus their
own trays, but it also says No service here, a negative reminder)

4-Mix in memorabilia: Providing physical reminders of an experience. (e.g.
t-shirt of a concert, postcard from a vacation trip, a cap of a memorable golf
match, etc.)

5-Engage all five senses: Engaging all senses as the more senses an
experience engages the more effective and memorable it can be.














95
7.4. Appendix-IV
Mascarenhas, Kesavan and Bernacchis (2006) common CE features

1-Anticipating and fulfilling customer needs and wants better than
competitors: Anticipating and understanding the specific needs, wants and
desires of target customers and fulfilling them uniquely and way beyond the
normal call of duty.

2-Providing real customer experiences: Providing real experiences, which
are not an amorphous construct but something as real as any service, good or
commodity.

3-Providing real emotional experiences: Providing experiences, which can
trigger an emotional experience of meaning, value, entertainment, friendly and
caring service, belongingness, brand community and memorable and engaging
experiences.

4-Experiences as distinct market offerings: Offering experiences as distinct
economic offerings. (i.e. Design of Apple iMacs is a very important aspect of
its economic offering but the main message was that the product would enable
users to do high-tech things in a simple way.)

5-Experiences as interactions: Providing suitable environment for value-
adding interactions for involvement and engagement of customers and the
firm. (e.g. Disney Theme Parks)

6-Experiences as engaging memories: Keeping customers engaged, excited
and entertained to create valuable memories with them.








96
7.5. Appendix-V
Chang and Horngs (2010) CE quality dimensions

1-Physical surroundings: It is the service environment that customers
interact with by five senses. It consists of 5 sub-dimensions as atmosphere
for actual physical atmosphere, concentration for attracting customers
attention, imagination for providing imaginative opportunities with
fictitious scenes and surprise for to create sensation in customers minds.

2-Service employees: Interactions between service employees and customers
have the utmost importance in CE.

3-Other customers: Customers often tend to listen other customers. Therefore
comments and evaluations of other customers on service quality have
significant importance on the experience of the customer.

4-Customers companions: Findings demonstrated that getting along and
having a good time with companions (during the experience) was an important
determinant of experience quality.

5-Customers themselves: Findings also showed that by participating in
consumption activity in service settings, the customers themselves acquire
cognitive which refers to the knowledge obtained from becoming involved
in the service process and fun which refers to the enjoyment during the
experience.













97
7.6. Appendix-VI
Gentile, Spiller and Nocis (2007) CE components;

1-Sensorial components: Using a mixture of sight, hearing, touch, taste and
smell senses to generate pleasure, excitement, satisfaction and sense of beauty.

2-Emotional component: Engaging with ones affective system through the
generation of moods, feelings and emotions.

3-Cognitive component: The CE component that is connected with thinking
or conscious mental process of customers. (i.e. an offering may engage
customers in using their creativity or in situations of problem solving;
furthermore a company can lead consumer to revise the usual idea of a
product or some common mental assumptions)

4-Pragmatic component: This component comes from the practical act of
doing something and it includes the concept of usability and extends to all the
product life-cycle stages. (i.e. the Apple iMac offers an optimal example of
what it means to design an extraordinary practical experience for users based
on usability standards)

5-Lifestyle component: A component of CE that comes from the affirmation
of the system of values and the beliefs of the person often through the
adoption of a lifestyle and behaviours. (i.e. frequently an offering may provide
such experience because the product itself and its consumption/use become
means of adhesion to certain values the company and brand embody and the
customers share. (e.g. no logo products)

6-Relational component: A component of CE that involves the person and
beyond his/her social context, his/her relationship with other people or also
with his/her ideal self. (i.e. an offering can leverage on such component by
means of a product, which encourages the use/consumption together with
other people)

98
7.7. Appendix-VII
Khalifas (2009) value models review

Value Component Models:
Khalifa (2004) considered Kaufmans (1998) value model and Kanos model
of customer perception in this type of value models. According to Kaufman
(1998) value has 3 components, which are want, worth and need. Kaufman
(1998) asserts that each decision to acquire goods or services includes one or a
combination of all the above value elements, where the sum of the elements
results in a purchase decision. Kanos model, which is based on
disconfirmation model that is prevalent in the consumer behaviour literature
(Rust and Oliver, 2000: Oliver, 1997), includes three components of value:
dissatisfiers, satisfiers, and delighters (Joiner, 1994; Thompson, 1998).
According to Khalifa (2004) these models are incomplete as they merely focus
on benefits and demote the sacrifice side of the value equation.

Benefits/Cost ratio models:
Many authors have identified the major components of the value equation,
which are basically benefits and costs in different ways and explained
what do they represent in context of their approaches (Monroe, 1990; Gale,
1994; Butz and Goodstein, 1996; Carothers and Adams, 1991; Gronroos,
1997; Kotler, 1996; Naumann, 1995; Treacy and Wiersema, 1995; Zeithaml,
1988). Groths (1994) exclusive value premium and margin concept,
Gronrooss (2000) customer perceived value equations and Parolinis (1999)
net value methodology are basically benefits/cost ratio models (Khalifa,
2004). Despite the fact that these utilitarian models are broader and more
complete than value component models; they do not pay much attention to the
dynamics of value building; moreover, they seem to be static rather than
dynamic (Khalifa, 2004).

Means-end models:
Means-ends models are based on the assumption that customers acquire and
use products or services to accomplish favourable ends and seek to explain
99
how an individuals choice of a product or service enables him or her to
achieve his or her desired end states (Khalifa, 2004). This view is prevalent in
consumer behaviour literature (Rokeach, 1973; Gutman, 1982; Peter and
Olson, 1987; Wilkie, 1994; de Chernatony et al., 2000). Huber et al. (2001),
cited in Khalifa (2004), assert that consumers obtain consequences (desirable
or undesirable) from the consumption of products or services either directly
from consuming or indirectly at a later point in time or from others reactions
to ones consumption behaviour. This point of view will contribute to this
paper later within the context of how holistic customer experiences are formed
(or designed). Many other authors have contributed to the explanation of
decision-making process before a purchase event and consequences produced
through consumption of a product or a service (Huber et al., 2001; Gutman,
1991; Peter and Olson, 1990; Olson and Reynolds, 1983; Sheth et al., 1991;
Levitt, 1980; Lanning, 1998).

Woodruff (1997 p 142) has consolidated these approaches in his customer
value hierarchy model and proposed that: Customer value is a customers
perceived preference for and evaluation of those product attributes, attribute
performances, and consequences arising from use that facilitate (or block)
achieving the customers goals and purposes in use situations.

According to Khalifa (2004 p 655), the means-end models fill a gap in the
literature by being able to explain why customers attach different weights to
various benefits in evaluating alternative products/services, however, they
fail to pay sufficient attention to the sacrifices of a customer and elaborating
on the trade-offs customers are expected to make between benefits and
sacrifices. As mentioned previously, incorporating all these types of value
models, Khalifa (2004) proposed an integrative configuration as follows:

1-The value exchange model:
This model is basically an improved benefit/cost model, which is built based
on Huber et al. (2001), Parolini (1999), Gronroos (1997), Groth (1994) and
Zeithaml (1988) (See Figure 710).

100

Figure 710: Customer value in exchange (Khalifa, 2004, p 656)
2-The value build-up model:
This model focuses on the benefits side of the value equation and it shows
how value builds up through the change of different variables such as
customers utility and psychic needs, tangible and intangible customer
benefits, transactional and interactional relationships and so on. Khalifa (2004)
noted that this model is an integration and extension of the work of McKean
(2002), Smith and Wheeler (2002), Horovitz (2000), Schneider and Bowen
(1999), Groth (1994), and Lovelock (1983) (See Figure 711).


Figure 711: Customer value build-up (Khalifa, 2004, p 657)
2-The value dynamics model:
This model depicts the dynamics of how customers evaluate a service
providers total offering and also it shows the interaction between basic
product features which are taken-for-granted features, expected features,
101
which are typically performance related features and innovative features
which are the key elements of delighting customers (See Figure 712).


Figure 712: Customer value dynamics (Khalifa, 2004, p 658)
Khalifa (2004) noted that: The three models of the integrative configuration
of customer value are not intended to be stand-alone models. They are highly
related and can be considered as complements of each other (See Figure 7
13).


Figure 713: Cascading the three complimentary models of customer value configuration
(Khalifa, 2004, p 660)







102
7.8. Appendix-VIII
Nike value co-creation example

During the 2006 World Cup, in partnership with Google, Nike set up a social
networking site, Joga.com, that invited individuals to film their football skills,
upload the videos that showcased their talent, and then have the network
community comment on, rate and share the user-generated content. The firm
invited twenty purveyors of sneaker culture to compete in designing a new shoe
for Nike. The firm structured the competition as if it were a reality show and
then asked the Nike Internet community to vote on the best design. Besides
these designs and Nikes original new designs for the season, fans could go on
the Nike ID site to personalize their own shoes from various styles and colours,
including putting the flags of the countries they wanted to support on their
shoes. Nike provided software tools for local football teams and professional
leagues to co-design and customize the soccer shoe.




























103
7.9. Appendix-IX
Questionnaire

I am Inanc ENGIN a fulltime student on the MSc in Marketing Management
programme and I am conducting this survey for my masters dissertation.

The aim of this survey is to explore the key factors that determine how
individuals choose their mobile operators and what do they value in their
experiences.

Please respond to each question based on your experiences as a subscriber of a
mobile network operator. Data collected will be used solely for this study and
treated with anonymity.

Section-0: Demographic Characteristics

D1: Please choose your age group.
( ) 15-18 ( ) 18-24 ( ) 24-30( ) 30-45 ( ) 45-55 ( ) 55+

D2: Please select your gender
( ) Male ( ) Female

D3: Please choose your education level.
( ) High school graduate ( ) University student
( ) University graduate-BS, BA- ( ) Higher Degree-MS, MA, PhD-

D4: Please choose your monthly mobile telecom spending group.
( ) less than 5 TL ( ) 6 TL - 10 TL ( ) 11 TL - 20 TL ( ) 21 TL - 30 TL
( ) 30 TL - 50 TL ( ) more than 50 TL




















104
Section-1: Pre-experience phase of the HCE

Q.1: When deciding to buy a new mobile line or transferring your mobile line
to another operator, which factors affect your decisions in general? Please
indicate your agreement and disagreement with the following statements.


Agree
Slightly
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree Disagree
Q.1.1. Ads (TV, Internet, on-street, radio,
newspaper and magazine ads) usually affect my
decisions
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.1.2. I value opinions of people around me, I
usually ask them
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.1.3. I usually look into carefully the details of
the service that I will buy
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.1.4. I usually choose the operator that people
around me use
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.1.5. I dont think that I act rationally in this
type of decisions
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.1.6. Nothing affects my decisions, I decide only
by myself
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Q.2: When deciding to buy a new mobile line or transferring your mobile line
to another operator, which information channels do you value? Please indicate
your agreement and disagreement with the following statements.


Agree
Slightly
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree Disagree
Q.2.1. TV ads ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.2.2. Internet ads ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.2.3. Radio ads
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.2.4. Printed newspaper and magazine ads
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.2.5. On-street ads (e.g. billboards)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.2.6. Operator web sites
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.2.7. Comments in social media
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Q.2.8. Sales people in operator branch office
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )














105
Section-2: Product/Service usage experience phase of the HCE

Q.3: Considering your whole mobile operator experience, please choose 1 out
of 2 option for each of the following statement pairs.

Q.3.1
(A) I would like the person whom I call to be in the same network with
me. If not, I might consider not calling.
(B) I dont care which network the person I call is in. I make the call no
matter what

Q.3.2
(A) It frustrates me when I encounter voice breaks or call drops during
voice calls and that might make me think to change my operator
(B) It is not that important to encounter voice breaks or call drops
during voice calls as long as my operator lets me talk cheap.

Q.3.3
(A) Voice quality is very important for me. I might consider to start
using an operator that has slightly higher prices to benefit from its high
quality voice offerings.
(B)Voice quality is not that important for me. Simply, understanding
what the person on the other side of the phone says is enough for me.

Q.3.4
(A) It frustrates me when I cannot get any signal and if it happens more
than one time I might think to change my operator.
(B) The offerings of my operator are really good in value, if I cannot
get any signal I would go somewhere else and retry.

Q.3.5
(A) I dont want to pay any extra fee other than my budgeted plan; it
frustrates me when I have to pay extra for any other thing.
(B) If my operator lets me know before charging any extra fee, its not
a big deal.

Q.3.6
(A) I definitely know which tariff I use and the details of it.
(B) Tariff details are so complex; I dont know what I exactly pay for.

Q.3.7
(A) When I send an SMS it frustrates me if it does not reach to the
receiver instantly. If it happens more than once I might consider
changing my operator.
(B) Considering the low-price SMS offerings of an operator and the
possibility to send thousands of SMSs with very low cost, it does not
matter the SMS reach to the receiver instantly, I can re-send it again
and again.

Q.3.8
(A) It frustrates me when I receive a promotion SMS from a company
that I even dont now. I might consider buying a new mobile number
only because of this.
(B) My operator should help me to block these kind of SMSs.
(C) I have no problem with promotion SMSs, nevertheless I learn about
new campaigns and promotions thanks to them.

106
Q.3.9
(A) While surfing in the Internet with my mobile phone, I often worry
about my quota and it often makes me nervous.
(B) I can always calculate how much data I received and sent or I can
control it later on, therefore I dont feel nervous.

Q.3.10
(A) When I call the call centre of my operator I often get lost in the
voice menu.
(B) When I call the call centre of my operator I can easily get to the
menu I want.

Q.3.11
(A) When I call the call centre of my operator I would like to talk with
a real person directly.
(B) When I call the call centre of my operator, what I need the most is
a clear and easy-to-understand voice menu, not a real person.

Q.4: Considering your whole mobile operator experiences, in which part of
your total experience you had bad experiences, which made you to feel
negative in anyway? (You can select multiple choices)

Looking for information about my operator on the web ( )
Assessing offering details ( )
Budgeting ( )
Finding an operator branch office ( )
Dealing with paperwork in branch office ( )
Making a voice call ( )
Sending SMS ( )
Surfing in the Internet ( )
Using value added services ( )
Paying bills ( )
Topping-up ( )
Using online tools in operator web sites ( )
Talking with operator call centre ( )
Talking with sales people in operator branch office ( )

Q.5: When you have a trouble with your mobile operator what do you often
do? Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following
statements.


Agree
Slightly
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree Disagree
I call customer care (Call centre) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
I go to operator branch office ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
I ask people around me
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
I go online and look for solution
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )




107
Section-3: Post-experience phase of the HCE

Q.6: When you have a bad experience with your mobile operator what do you
often do? Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following
statements.

(A) I definitely tell about this to people around me
(B) I talk about it if someone asks
(C) I never talk about it

Q.7: When you have a good experience that makes you feel happy and
surprised with your mobile operator what do you often do? Please indicate
your agreement or disagreement with the following statements.

(A) I definitely tell about this to people around me
(B) I talk about it if someone asks
(C) I never talk about it

Q.8: Considering your experience with your mobile operator, which feelings a
mobile operator should evoke? Please indicate your agreement or
disagreement with the following statements.


Agree
Slightly
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree Disagree
There can be some problems but my happiness in
total is very important
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
I should be able to trust my mobile operator at all
the time (i.e. coverage issues)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
My operator must excite me (e.g. feeling excited
when watching TV ads of your operator)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
I must feel that my operator cares me (e.g.
sending gift SMSs on birthdays)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
My operator must not harm my social status,
furthermore it must contribute to it
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
I would like to think that the offerings of my
operator are good in value
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
My operator must offer me new options all the
time
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
I must feel entertained when using the services of
my operator
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
The most important thing is that I must not get
frustrated with my operator
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
I must proud of my operator and that I can be able
to think that I made the right choice
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )









108
7.10. Appendix-X
Cross-tabulations (Chi-Square tests)

Chi-Square test is used to check a potential relationship between two discrete
variables. Therefore, in this research, to check potential relationships between
demographic characteristics of the respondents and their responses, Chi-
Square test has been applied to all of the responses of the questionnaire.

In Chi-Square Tests tables, if the value in the cell of Pearson Chi-Square,
Asymp.Sig.(2-sided), in other words the p value is bigger than 0.05
(p>0.05) that means there is no statistical relation between the values in the
rows and the columns; and if the p value is smaller than 0.05 (p<0.05) that
means there is a statistical relationship between the values in the rows and the
columns.

In Chi-Square test, for each question, the number of cells in the table with less
than a frequency of 5 must not exceed 20% of the total cells; otherwise the test
cannot be interpreted. Therefore such questions are excluded from the cross-
tabs.

For agreement-disagreement scale questions, 1.00 is for Disagree, 2.00 is for
Slightly Disagree, 3.00 is for Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4.00 is for
Slightly Agree and 5.00 is for Agree responses.

Section-1: Pre-experience phase of the HCE
Section-1, Age Group cross-tabs
All pre-experience phase questions are excluded from these cross-tabs as cells
in Chi-Square test tables that have a frequency of less than 5 exceeded 20% of
total cells.







109
Section-1, Gender cross-tabs
Excluded questions: Q1.3



Q1.1: p<0.05 respondents genders and Q1.1 responses are dependent on each other
Q1.2: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q1.4: p<0.05 respondents genders and Q1.4 responses are dependent on each other
Q1.5: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q1.6: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q2.1: p>0.05 no statistical relation








110


Q2.2: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q2.3: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q2.4: p>0.05 no statistical relation
Q2.5: p<0.05 respondents genders and Q2.5 responses are dependent on each other



Q2.6: p>0.05 no statistical relation
Q2.7: p<0.05 respondents genders and Q2.7 responses are dependent on each other



Q2.8: p<0.05 respondents genders and Q2.8 responses are dependent on each other



111
Section-1, Education level groups cross-tabs
All pre-experience phase questions are excluded from these cross-tabs as cells
in Chi-Square test tables that have a frequency of less than 5 exceeded 20% of
total cells.

Section-1, Monthly mobile telecom spending groups cross-tabs
All pre-experience phase questions are excluded from these cross-tabs as cells
in Chi-Square test tables that have a frequency of less than 5 exceeded 20% of
total cells.

Section-2: Product/Service usage experience phase of the HCE
Section-2, Age Group cross-tabs
Excluded questions: Q3.2, Q3.4, Q3.5, Q3.6, Q3.7, Q3.8, Q3.11, Q4.1, Q4.3,
Q4.4, Q4.5, Q4.6, Q4.7, Q4.8, Q4.9, Q4.10, Q4.11, Q4.12, Q4.14


Q3.1: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.3: p>0.05 no statistical relation







112


Q3.9: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.10: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.2: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.13: p>0.05 no statistical relation

Section-2, Gender cross-tabs


Q3.1: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.2: p>0.05 no statistical relation
113


Q3.3: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.4: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q3.5: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.6: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q3.7: p>0.05 no statistical relation
Q3.8: p<0.05 respondents genders and Q3.8 responses are dependent on each other





114


Q3.9: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.10: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q3.11: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.1: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.2: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.3: p>0.05 no statistical relation







115


Q4.4: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.5: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.6: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.7: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.8: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.9: p>0.05 no statistical relation








116


Q4.10: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.11: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.12: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.13: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.13: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q5.1: p>0.05 no statistical relation








117


Q5.2: p<0.05 respondents genders and Q5.2 responses are dependent on each other
Q5.3: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q5.4: p>0.05 no statistical relation

Section-2, Education level groups cross-tabs
Excluded questions: Q4.4, Q4.7, Q4.10, Q4.11


Q3.1: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.2: p>0.05 no statistical relation





118


Q3.3: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.4: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q3.5: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.6: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q3.7: p>0.05 no statistical relation
Q3.8: p<0.05 respondents education levels and Q3.8 responses are dependent on each other




119


Q3.9: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.10: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q3.11: p<0.05 respondents education levels and Q3.11 responses are dependent on each other
Q4.1: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.2: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.3: p>0.05 no statistical relation





120


Q4.5: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.6: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.8: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.9: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.12: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.13: p>0.05 no statistical relation


Q4.14: p>0.05 no statistical relation

121
Section-2, Monthly mobile telecom spending groups cross-tabs
Excluded questions: Q4.7, Q4.10, Q4.11


Q3.1: p<0.05 respondents monthly spending and Q3.1 responses are dependent on each other
Q3.2: p>0.05 no statistical relation


Q3.3: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.4: p>0.05 no statistical relation


Q3.5: p<0.05 respondents monthly spending and Q3.5 responses are dependent on each other
Q3.6: p>0.05 no statistical relation
122


Q3.7: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.8: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q3.9: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q3.10: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q3.11: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.1: p>0.05 no statistical relation

123


Q4.2: p>0.05 no statistical relation
Q4.3: p<0.05 respondents monthly spending and Q4.3 responses are dependent on each other



Q4.4: p<0.05 respondents monthly spending and Q4.4 responses are dependent on each other
Q4.5: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.6: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q4.8: p>0.05 no statistical relation

124


Q4.9: p<0.05 respondents monthly spending and Q4.9 responses are dependent on each other
Q4.12: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q4.13: p>0.05 no statistical relation
Q4.14: p<0.05 respondents monthly spending and Q4.14 responses
are dependent on each other

Section-3: Post-experience phase of the HCE
Section-3, Age Group cross-tabs
All post-experience phase questions are excluded from these cross-tabs as
cells in Chi-Square test tables that have a frequency of less than 5 exceeded
20% of total cells.






125
Section-3, Gender cross-tabs
Excluded questions: Q6.1, Q6.2, Q7.1, Q7.2, Q7.4, Q7.6, Q7.7, Q7.9


Q7.3: p>0.05 no statistical relation, Q7.5: p>0.05 no statistical relation



Q7.8: p<0.05 respondents genders and Q7.8 responses are dependent on each other
Q7.10: p>0.05 no statistical relation

Section-3, Education level groups cross-tabs
All post-experience phase questions are excluded from these cross-tabs as
cells in Chi-Square test tables that have a frequency of less than 5 exceeded
20% of total cells.

Section-3, Monthly mobile telecom spending groups cross-tabs
All post-experience phase questions are excluded from these cross-tabs as
cells in Chi-Square test tables that have a frequency of less than 5 exceeded
20% of total cells.