A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON VODAFONE AND AIRTEL SERVICE PROVIDER TOWARDS CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Dr. Bharti Shah
Assistant Professor [Commerce Dept.], M.K.H.S. Gujarati Girls College, Indore 1 INTRODUCTION
Communication is a process of transferring meaningful information from one entity to another i.e., from a sender to receiver. According to Snyder (2006) Communications is a process that allows information to pass between a sender and one or more receivers and the transfer of meaningful information or ideas from one location to a second location.
Communications is a human process;
humans communicate by sending information between them whereas, telecommunication is the transmission of data or information over a distance.
Tele is a Greek word meaning at a distance, far off. Thus, it classifies smoke signals, semaphore flags, lanterns and signal flares, telegraph systems, televisions, telephones, written letters, and hand signals as capabilities that support telecommunications. The problems with these communications forms include reliability, speed of
transmission, and
comprehension purposes. It has become the fact of life and is an ever-going process. Telecommunication is a very important form of verbal communication now a day.
2 AIRTEL (EXPRESS YOURSELF)
Based in New Delhi, Bharti Airtel is India's largest private sector telecom operator and India's sixth-largest company by market capitalization. Bharti Airtel is also the only operator to offer its services (mobile, fixed line and Internet access) in each of India ‘s 23 ―circles, ‖ or operating areas. While this wide service footprint made Bharti Airtel especially well-positioned to capitalize on India's telecom boom, it also presented the company with significant challenges and risks in addressing this demand. In order to keep up, while also maintaining high
levels of customer service, all the processes required to run its business–
from order management and service activation to those processes involved in the operation of its core network–needed to run smoothly and in sync with each other.
Bharti Airtel knew that the key to capitalizing on its growth opportunities was to establish deeper and more personalized relationships with its customers, as well as to provide a consistent, high-quality customer experience.
3 VODAFONE (POWER TO YOU)
Vodafone India is a 100% subsidiary of Vodafone Group. It commenced operations in 1994 when its predecessor Hutchison Telecom acquired the cellular license for Mumbai. Brand Vodafone was launched in India in September 2007, after Vodafone Plc. acquired a majority stake in Hutchinson Essar in May 2007.
From a single operation base with 31 million customers, the company has expanded its operations across the country to cover all 22 telecom circles and service 180 million customers.
3.1 Objectives of the Study
⮚To examine the level of customer satisfaction on the parameters of service quality, network, price, grievance redressal system, accessibility etc.
⮚To study consumer buying behaviour which influences the purchasing decision process.
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.1 Study Area
Indore is considered to be a one of the most important cities of central India; it is also known as mini Bombay and knowledge hub of Madhya Pradesh. The environment of education and business in this city is very good and impressive. The
Sample size for the study was 150. In this study for the statistical calculation SPSS 20.0 package used.
5 DATA ANALYSIS & FINDINGS Table 1 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of
Items
.808 29
H01: There is no significant difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Service Quality.
H11: There is a significant difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Service Quality.
Table 2 Group Statistics on Service Quality
GROUP N Mean Std.
Deviation Std.
Error Mean Airtel
Vodafone 75 75
25.5467 25.4200 4.94918 4.26792
.57148 .49282
Table 3 Independent Samples Test on Service Quality Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig
. (2- tail ed)
Mean Differ ence
Std.
Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper Equal
variances assumed SQ Equal variances not assumed
1.391 .240 .565
148 .565
144.86
9 .57
3 .57 3
.4266 7 .4266 7
.7546 3 .7546 3
- 1.0645 7 - 1.0648 3
1.91790 1.91817
The assumed null hypothesis H01 was tested at 95% confidence level.
The significance value (p value) is calculated 0.240>0.05 (at 5% degree of freedom). The null hypothesis H01 is found accepted that means the test is insignificant at 0.05 level. From the result we can conclude that there is a significant no difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of service quality.
The factor tested ‗service quality
‘felt equally in Airtel (M=22.5) and
Vodafone (M=22.4) with equal mean. The value of F (1.391) is less than the tabulated value, so null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level of significance.
H02: There is no significant difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Network.
H02: There is a significant difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Network.
Table 4 Group Statistics on Network
GROUP N Mean Std.
Deviation Std.
Error Mean 1.00
2.00
75 75
11.6400 11.6800 2.57766 2.42821
.29764 .28039
Table 5 Independent Samples Test On Network Levene's
Test for Equalityof
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2- taile
d)
Mean
Difference Std.
Error Difference
95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances assumed N Equal variances not assumed
.002 .964 1.07 6 1.07 6
148 .284 147 .284
- .44000 - .44000
.4089 1 .4089 1
1.248 06 1.248 08
.36806 .36808
The assumed null hypothesis H02 was tested at 95% confidence level.
The significance value (p value) is calculated 0.964>0.05 (at 5% degree of freedom). The null hypothesis H02 is found accepted that means the test is insignificant at 0.05 level. From the result we can conclude that there is a significant no difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Network. The factor tested ‗Network ‘felt equally in Airtel(M=11.64) and Vodafone
(M=11.68) with equal mean. The value of F (.002) is less than the tabulated value, so null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level of significance.
H03: There is no significant difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Price.
H13: There is a significant difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Price.
Table 6 Group Statistics on Price
GROUP N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean 1.00
2.00 75
75 11.6133 11.6933 2.62778
2.54672 .30343 .29407
Table 7 Independent Samples Test on Price Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2- taile
d)
Mean Diffe rence
Std.
Error Differ ence
95%
Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances assumed P Equal variances not assumed
.121 .728 .757 .757 148 147 .450
.450 .3200 0 .3200 0
.4225 5 .4225 5
.5150 1 .5150 1
1.155011.15501
The assumed null hypothesis H03 was tested at 95% confidence level.
The significance value (p value) is calculated 0.728>0.05 (at 5% degree of freedom). The null hypothesis H03 is found accepted that means the test is insignificant at 0.05 level. From the result we can conclude that there is a significant no difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Price. The factor tested ‗Price ‘felt equally in Airtel
(M=11.61) and Vodafone (M=11.69) with equal mean. The value of F (.121) is less than the tabulated value, so null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level of significance.
H04: There is no significant difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Grievance Redressal System.
H14: There is a significant difference between Airtel and Vodafonein terms of Grievance Redressal System.
Table 8. Independent Samples Greivance Redressal System
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2- taile
d)
Mea n Diff eren ce
Std.
Err or Dif fere nce
95%
Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances not assumed
1.910 .16
9 .183
.183 148 143.
912
.855 .855 .093
33 .093 33
.51 083 .51 083
- .91613- .91637
1.1028 0 1.1030 4
The assumed null hypothesis H04 was tested at 95% confidence level.
The significance value (p value) is calculated 0.169>0.05 (at 5% degree of
freedom). The null hypothesis H04 is found accepted that means the test is insignificant at 0.05 level. From the result we can conclude that there is a
Group N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error Mean 1.00
2.00 75 75
15.2533 15.2600 3.38156 2.85241
.39047 .32937
significant no difference between Airtel and Vodafone in terms of Grievance Redressal System. The factor tested ‗Grievance Redressal System ‘felt equally in Airtel (M=15.25) and Vodafone
(M=15.26) with equal mean. The value of F (1.910) is less than the tabulated value, so null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level of significance.
Table 9 Coefficients a On Consumer Buying Behaviour & Purchasing Decision Process Model 1
(Constant)
Purchasing Decision Process Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
4.645 1.269
.999 .039
.937 4.649
32.697 .000 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Consumer Buying Behaviour
Figure 1 Histogram on Consumer Buying Behaviour & Purchasing
Decision Process
Over all model summary shows the value
of multiple correlation
coefficient R=0.937, it is the linear correlation coefficient between observed and model predicted values of the dependent variable, its large value indicates a strong relationship. R2, the coefficient of determination is the squared value of the multiple correlation coefficients. Adjusted R2=.878, R2change is also 0.878 and these values are significant which shows that overall strength of association is noteworthy.
The coefficient of determination R2is 0.878; therefore, 87.8% of the variation in purchasing decision process is explained by consumer buying behaviour.
ANOVA is used to exhibit model ‘s ability to explain any variation in the dependent variable. ANOVA table exhibits that the hypothesis that all model
coefficients are 0 is rejected at 1% as well as 5% level of significance which means that the model coefficients differ significantly from zero. In other words, we can say that there exists enough evidence to conclude that slope of population regression line is not zero and hence, purchasing decision process is useful as predictor of consumer buying behaviour.
From the table of coefficients, the regression equation can be obtained as Consumer Buying Behaviour = 4.645+
1.269 * Purchases Decision process.
The normal probability plot is obtained to test the assumption about the normality of residuals and it appears that the residuals are approximately normally distributed. Thus, the assumptions for regression analysis appear to be met.
6 CONCLUSION
India has witnessed a rapid growth in cellular, radio-paging, value added services; internet& global communication by satellite (GMPCS) Services. The agents of change as observed from international perspective have been broadly categorized into economic structure, competition policy and technology. The sustained growth of the telecom companies around the world has been more because of the transfer according to the needs of local geography. Ramchandran (2005) analyzed performance of Indian telecom industry which is based on volumes rather than margins. The Indian consumer is extremely price sensitive. Various socio- demographic factors high GDP growth, rising income levels, booming knowledge
sector and growing urbanization have contributed towards tremendous growth of this sector.
The companies Airtel and Vodafone need to deeply consider this matter. The respondents are equally satisfied with Airtel and Vodafone services in terms of after sales service, signal reception, bill delivery and mode of payment and also customers are satisfied with the call tariff and the brand name. It has also been found that Airtel has set more towers in order to have large network coverage area that ultimately brings clarity in signal reception whereas Vodafone has to work more on that part to win competition with others. From the research study, it has been found out that the Customers are very particular about the Quality of the Telecom services and hence they want to increase the Quality of telecom services by providing the Customers with someValue-added services (Plans &
schemes). In order to thrive and excel, telecomsector has to understand about the customers ‘expectations. They also have to understand about their competitors and their nuances in understanding their Customers.
The study suggested that cellular service providers concentrate more on increasing network stability and setting tariff rates that mobile majors should shift focus on building corporate image and analyse more carefully the reason for consumers to switch brands in this industry in order to increase loyalty among these consumers. All variables promotion, coverage, price, frequency, quality and overall value-added services have positive relationship with consumer perception. Hence it is concluded that all these variables must be considered in designing and launching of product to get good match between consumer and marketers. Each day comes with hundreds of new advantages of these services. Now it comes to the consumers whom, why and which services they should use and opt (Rogers, 1995).
Telecommunication industry is not well diversified so retaining customer is one important strategy available to telecom companies in order to remain competitive.
Though the industry is currently growing in terms of coverage and customer base, retaining customer should be
an attractive option than attracting new customers since it is less expensive.
The reliability of the network plays an important role in influencing overall service quality as perceived by the customers.
REFERENCES
1. Aheleroff, S. (2011), Customer segmentation for a mobile telecommunications company based on service usage behavior, Data Mining and Intelligent Information Technology Applications (ICMIA), 2011 3rd International Conference on 24-26 Oct. 2011, pp 308 – 313.
2. Anckar, B., &D‘Incau, D. (2002). Value creation in mobile commerce: Findings from a consumer survey. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 43–
64.
3. Banu Kargin, Nuri Basoglu, Tugrul Daim (2009), Factors affecting the adoption of mobile services, International Journal of Services Sciences 2009 - Vol. 2, No.1 pp. 29 – 52.
4. Basole, R.C. (2009), ‗‗Visualization of inter- firm relations in a converging mobileeco system ‘‘, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 144-59.
5. Bearden, W.O., & Teel, J.E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 20, pp.21-8.
6. Bloemer, J., De Ruyter, K., & Peeters, P.
(1998). Investigating drivers of bank loyalty:
the complex relationship between image, service quality and satisfaction. International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16, No.7, pp.276- 86
7. Chung-Chu Liu (2012) Measuring and prioritizing value of mobile phone usage, International Journal of Mobile Communications 2010 - Vol. 8, No.1 pp. 41 – 52
8. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No3, pp.343-73.
9. Ganguli, Shirshendu (2008), ‖ changing face of relationship marketing; Evaluation of CRM to EMM ―, Effective executive, pp.54.
10. Harvinder Singh, ―Mobile Telephony Need to Knock Multiple Doors‖, Marketing Mastermind, December, 2005, Pg. 49.
11. Hyunchul Ahn,Jae Joo Ahn ,Hyun Woo Byun,Kyong Joo Oh(2011), A novel customer scoring model to encourage the use of mobile value added services, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 38, Issue 9, September 2011, Pages 11693–11700.
