Hell on Earth Essay

Hell on Earth Essay Hell on Earth Essay Coming home from a busy day of school, the first thing the little girl can think about is the after school snack that is awaiting in the refrigerator and snack drawer. But before she can even put her backpack down and take her shoes off, her fuzzy best friend, who happens to be a German Shepherd, comes scrambling around the corner to greet her with a wagging tail and a tilt of the head that articulates, â€Å"You’ve been gone for too long; I’ve missed you†. The little girl responds with a grin, a twinkle in her eye that agrees, â€Å"I missed you more†, and open arms, perfect for Fritz to get closer for a belly rub. Fritz turns over on his back, with his legs in the air, for the little girl to itch his favorite spot (Deane). Just as Fritz begins to calm down from excitement of seeing his favorite cuddle buddy, a loud noise crashes upstairs. The clamor triggers a response in Fritz’s mind that turns the lovable dog’s personality into a growlin g monster. As the girl screams for her mom’s help, it is already too late. The dog pounces onto the innocent girl and opens his mouth with her leg in direct fire. As Fritz bites down, the little girl’s cry tells her mom to hurry down stairs immediately (Deane). My mom, the little girl, has told me countless stories, like this one, about her dog Fritz suddenly changing personalities from the snuggly pillow to a ruthless, snarling monster. Fritz had attacked countless amounts of people and hindered the safety of my mom’s family. My grandparents, feeling rushed buying a German shepherd due to the sudden passing of their dog, went against their better judgment and decided to buy the squished puppy hiding behind the metal fence and small cage from a pet store in a mall. In the beginning Fritz seemed just like any other German shepherd puppy they bought; but after two years of ruthless behavior from Fritz and failed behavior training, my grandparents made the difficul t decision to put him down. My grandparents felt ashamed for making that grim behavior, but they knew Fritz could not be tamed and it was for the better (Deane). Fritz’s behavior and psychological problems due to the puppy mill where he was born created a monster disguised in an adorable, fuzzy friend’s body that could not be fixed. Just like my grandparents, many other people have seen and purchased, the barking, hopeless dogs begging for a home behind the glass wall in a shopping mall. Like Fritz, most of the dogs have been driven to the mall from a disturbing past, a puppy mill. A puppy mill is a sadistic compound where the profit from dogs is the ultimate goal and the treatment and health of the dogs are inhumane and not a priority of the owner. Imagine, a warehouse with objects stacked on top of each other, row after row, abandoned in the dark. In these objects are puppies often starving and dehydrated covered in the feces that dropped from the cages above (Humane Society of the United States). This image is not a nightmare; it is happening across the United States every day. Without ever seeing daylight or experiencing the freedom to run around, female dogs have two litters a year until the age of 5, when they ultimately wear out. They are part of a continuous cycle of birthing and nursing puppies. Many litters have chronic diseases, rotten teeth, and eye and ear infections. In addition to physical harm, puppies have genetic disorders and many other psychological problems that appear to owners months or years after buying directly or indirectly from a puppy mill. Females that are no longer able to produce puppies are starved to death or set loose to the wild where they are ultimately killed (Sharon). As citizens of the United States of America we need to take a stand against the coldhearted treatment towards innocent puppies. I am proposing to you, as a citizen of this supposed glorious country, to expose the hidden truth of puppy mills to your legislators and lawmakers. The dogs in these conditions do not have a

Specific Teaching Strategies to Differentiate Instruction

Specific Teaching Strategies to Differentiate Instruction Research shows that one of the most effective ways to meet all learners needs is to differentiate instruction. Many teachers use differentiated instruction strategies because it allows them to engage their students by accommodating each students unique learning style. However, when you have a large group of students, it can be tough to keep up with each child’s individual needs. It takes time to come up with, and implement differentiated activities.  To help keep the workload manageable, teachers have tried a variety of strategies, from tiered assignments to choice boards. Here are a few more teacher-tested teaching strategies to differentiate instruction in your elementary classroom.   Choice Board Choice boards are activities that give students options as to what activities to complete to meet class requirements. A great example of this comes from a third-grade teacher named Mrs. West. Mrs. West uses choice boards with her third-grade students because she feels it is the easiest way to differentiate instruction while keeping her students engaged. While choice boards can be set up in a variety of ways (student interest, ability, learning style, etc.) Mrs. West chooses to set up her choice boards by using the Multiple Intelligence Theory. She sets up the choice board like a tic tac toe board- in each box she writes a different activity and asks her students to choose one activity from each row. The activities vary in content, product, and process. Here is an example of the types of tasks she uses on her students choice board. Choice Board for Multiple Intelligences: Verbal/Linguistic – Write instructions on how to use your favorite gadget.Logical/Mathematical – Design a map of your bedroom.Visual/Spatial –   Create a comic strip.Interpersonal-   Interview a friend or your best friend.Free ChoiceBody-Kinesthetic - Make up a game.Musical – Write a song.Naturalist – Conduct an experiment.Intrapersonal – Write about the future. Learning Menu Learning menus are much like choice boards whereas students have the opportunity to choose which tasks on the menu that they would like to complete. However, the learning menu is unique in that it actually takes the form of a menu. Instead of having a nine square grid with nine unique choices on it, the menu can have an unlimited amount of choices for the students to choose from. You can also set up your menu in a variety of ways, as mentioned above. Here is an example of a spelling homework learning menu: Learning Menu for Homework: (Students choose one from each category)Appetizer - Sort spelling words into categories, choose three spelling words to define, highlight all vowels.Entree - Use all spelling words to write a story, write a poem using five spelling words, write a sentence for each spelling word.Dessert - Write your spelling words in ABC order, Create a word search using at least five words, use a mirror to write your spelling words backward.   Tiered Activities In a tiered activity, all students are working on the same activity, but the activity is differentiated according to ability level. A great example of this type of tiered strategy is in an elementary school classroom where kindergartners are at the reading center.   An easy way to differentiate learning without the students even knowing it  is to have the students play the game, Memory. This game is easy to differentiate because you can have beginning students try to match a letter with its sound, while the more advanced students can try and match a letter to a word. To differentiate this station, all you have to do is have different bags of cards for each level, and direct specific students to which cards they should choose from. To make differentiation invisible, color-code the bags and tell each student which color he/she should choose. Another example of tiered activities is to break the assignment into three sections using varied levels of tasks. Here is an example of a basic tiered activity: Tier One: (Low) - Describe how the character acts.Tier Two: (Middle) - Describe the changes the character went through.Tier Three: (High) - Describe the clues that the author gives about the character. Many elementary school teachers find that this differentiated instructional strategy is an effective way for students to reach the same goals while taking into account each of their students’ individual needs. Adjusting Questions Many teachers find that an effective questioning strategy is to use adjusted questions to help them differentiate instruction in their classroom. The way this strategy works is simple- you use Blooms Taxonomy to develop questions starting with the most basic level, then moving towards the more advanced levels. Students at varying levels are able to answer questions on the same topic, but also at their own level. Here is an example of how teachers can use adjusted questing to differentiate an activity: For this example, the students had to read a paragraph, then answer a question that was tiered to their level. Basic learner - Describe what happened after...Advanced learner - Can you explain why...More Advanced learner - Do you know of another situation where... Flexible Grouping Many teachers who differentiate instruction in their classroom find flexible grouping an effective method of differentiation because it provides students with the opportunity to work with other students who may have a similar learning style, readiness, or interest as them. Depending on the purpose of the lesson, teachers can plan their activities based on a students’ attributes, then use flexible grouping to group students accordingly. The key to making flexible grouping effective is making sure the groups are not static. Its important that teachers continually conduct assessments throughout the year, and move students among the groups as they master their skills. Often time’s teachers tend to group students according to their ability at the beginning of the school year, and then forget to change the groups, or do not think they need to. This is not an effective strategy and will only hinder students from progressing. The Jigsaw The Jigsaw cooperative learning strategy is another effective method to differentiate instruction. In order for this strategy to be effective, students must work together with their classmates to complete an assignment. Heres how to works: Students are divided into small groups and each student is assigned one task. This is where the differentiation comes in- each child within the group is responsible for learning one thing, then bringing the information that they learned back to their group to teach their peers. The teacher can differentiate learning by choosing what, and how, each student in the group will learn the information. Here is an example of what a Jigsaw learning group looks like. Example of a Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Group: Students are divided into groups of five students. Their task is to research Rosa Parks. Each student within the group is given a task that suits their unique learning style. Here is an example. Student 1: Create a fake interview with Rosa Parks and find out about her early life.Student 2: Create a song about the Montgomery bus boycott.Student 3: Write a journal entry about Rosa Parks life as a civil rights pioneer.Student 4: Create a game that tells facts about racial discrimination.Student 5: Create a poster about Rosa Parks legacy and death. In todays elementary schools, classrooms are not taught with a â€Å"one size fits all† approach. Differentiated instruction allows for teachers to meet the needs of all learners, while still maintaining high standards and expectations for their students. Whenever you teach a concept in a variety of different modalities, you increase the chances that you will reach each and every student.

Home Health and Hospice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Home Health and Hospice - Essay Example Medicare is composed of three parts; Part A, Part B, and most recently part D. Part A and B were the initial divisions of the Medicare Program. Part A covers the health care received in hospice and health care without monthly premiums. It is the insurance portion of Medicare. Part B covers doctors’ services as well as other outpatient care absent in part A with an added monthly premium, which in 2008 cost about $96.40 every month (Shi & Singh, 2010). Changes in payment permitted people to make hospice services payment on a prospective basis under four care levels and adjusted by the wage index in an area. The local adjustment was important because it allowed low rates in regions with low wage levels and high rates in regions with high wage levels. This was followed by a new wage index, which comprised of a mix of both new and old wage indexes however; the new index was still based on hospital wage data. The Medicare hospice rates also varied according to the level of care that a beneficiary received. Initially, the payment system by Medicare was linked to the â€Å"Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA)†, and it had a huge influence on the number of home health as well as hospice care agencies. Initially, the implementation of BBA led to the exit of these agencies from the market as it reduced medical reimbursement, and the number of providers. Implementation of the prospective payment system (PPS) generated improved growth and financial stability of agencies. It stopped the decline in the number of home health providers. With the PPS, Medicare paid home health and hospice providers for every 60-day â€Å"episode of care.† The amount paid for the 60-day period was a set amount based on a standard rate and adjusted to the type as well as the intensity of care offered known as a case mix formula. The home health PPS depended on a 153-category case mix adjuster to set payment rates anchored in patients attributes like functional status, clinical ri gorousness, and the requirement for rehabilitative therapy examinations (Shi & Singh, 2010). Initially, Medicare hospice coverage consisted of 290-day benefit periods and an indefinite number of 60-day benefit time. Coverage can extend beyond this period given that a six-month prognosis is the doctor’s best estimate. There is also provision for patients to move out of and back into hospice care. When out of the care, patients regular Medicare or other insurance cover them. Medicare reimburses the providers of home health and hospice care on a per diem basis. This kind of payment covers all services offered by the hospice (Shi & Singh, 2010). There are numerous different rates that vary according to the level and type of care offered. Concerning eligibility for home and health care under Medicare, a patient has to present a medical justification to qualify hospice and home health benefits. Initially, eligibility criteria varied, depending on the hospice program. However, patie nts had to have a progressive, irreversible illness limited life expectancy, and they had to opt for palliative care instead of cure-focussed treatment. The presence of a family member or another caregiver was required continuously when the patient was no longer able to care for him or herself. Initially, for a person to be qualified for Medicare benefits, he or she had to be qualified f

Tourism, Leisure, Culture, Society & Politics Essay

Tourism, Leisure, Culture, Society & Politics - Essay Example First and foremost, tourism is a result of consumerism. It deals with a set of services people have at their disposal for a particular amount of money. The financial issue is one of the most significant drives in touristic choices (Haan, 2008). That is to say, tourism and consumerism are close in their practical meaning with landscape as the main medium of attraction for tourists (Aitchison, MacLeod, & Shaw, 2001). In turn, capitalism is always consumerism regarding to the notion among Western countries. Hence, it is indicative of many people to be troublemakers instead of tourists, as they intrude into the milieu of cultural and ethnical diversity of some people with no excuse as long as they are driven by the idea of their right for letting loose in accordance with money they spent for such a pleasure. Besides, there is a clear distinction between tourism and traveling. Andrews (2011) admits that tourism does more harm to the environment than traveling, since it the former touches upon invasion, pollution, and narrow-mindedness while the latter is characterized by discovery, understanding, intelligence, adventures, and broad-mindedness. In this vein, tourism is a mark of a person’s identity looking at the places one visits and the services one prefers most of all with an idea of a cultural merge in mind (Weiermair & Mathies, 2004). It is all about the financial substantiality of individuals. Thus, they want to pay for their pleasure in terms of the price to be paid for that. On the other hand, tourism, leisure, political activities, rights of individuals are all incorporated in the field of globalization. To say more, tourism and leisure are socially constructed and are subject to the power of a man’s feelings and inner states (Andrews, Deconstructing tourism & leisure, 2011). In the historical cut, individuals tried to perceive multiculturalism when traveling around the globe. In some cases it was favorable (India, Africa) in some other (Magell an and the Philippines) it ended up ferociously. Nonetheless, tourism has become an exploration of one’s ability to cope with different identities and in close relation with the local authenticity. The works by Paul Gauguin, Somerset Maugham, Jules Verne, and many other representatives of art and literature were among the pioneers of the global trend for cultural and aesthetical tourism. However, it was nice at a glance from the very outset. It changed significantly with the advent of commodification versus authenticity. Cole (2007) points out in his study that commodification of different places (so attractive for tourists) leads to negative outcomes based on the political manipulation over the villagers for the sake of the tourists’ well-being. In fact, such a trend designates the very purpose of tourism in this or that location and in accordance with this or that cultural identity. Talking on the commodification and authenticity, one should bear it in mind that tour ism is a direct search for difference and dominance as long as some experts compare it with neo-imperialism (Andrews, Creating ‘the Other’: People as Tourist Commodities, 2011). In addition, it is Western people who are more devoted to explore other countries in the same manner as their predecessors did in the colonial age. Thus, it is a hidden drive for pleasure and its

Rauschenbusch: A Man Ahead of His Time :: essays research papers

Rauschenbusch: A Man Ahead of His Time â€Å"Theology is the esoteric thought of the Church.† (WR 15) What is meant by this is that theology is a part of the Church that is very mysterious and confusing to most laymen. Rauschenbusch has introduced many new ideas into the theological point of view. Rauschenbusch tries to explain that the social gospel is here to help people pull more from theology than just jargon that they don’t understand. One of Rauschenbuch’s main points throughout his book A Theology for the Social Gospel is that man uses the thought of Adam being responsible for original sin and therefore everyone is born into sin. Jonathan Kozol, the author of Amazing Grace, went to the impoverished city of Mott Haven to observe the motivation of the citizens amidst a town where sin is around every street corner. He examined the meaning of life and the little opportunity the citizens of Mott Haven had to escape their unfortunate circumstances. Through Walter Rauschenbusch’s A Theology for the Social Gospel one can find the answers to the questions of sin and the heavy presence of sin. The excuse of using Adam as a reason to rid men of their responsibilities is one of the biggest mistakes theologians make, but Rauschenbusch has tried to set things straight by pointing out that those sinful behaviors are learned through your lifestyle and surroundings. Rauschenbusch has introduced many new ideas into the theological point of view. He still uses many of the same ideas of the â€Å"old theology†, but has just made some important changes to add his own thoughts on what theology should be about and how it should be used to influence people’s daily lives throughout the world. Rauschenbusch says, â€Å"Theology is not superior to the gospel. It exists to aid the preaching of salvation. Its business is to make the essential facts and principles of Christianity so simple and clear†¦that all who preach or teach the gospel†¦can draw on its stores and deliver a complete and unclouded Christian message. When the progress of humanity creates new tasks†¦or new problems†¦theology must connect these old fundamentals of our faith and make them Christian tasks and problems.† (WR 6) He is saying that basically the social gospel is an aid to help people understand what their salvation is and how to achieve salvation, but while doing this not using complicated jargon to confuse the laymen.

Marketing Mix and the Brand Reputation of Nokia

Market Forces April 2008 Vol. 4 No. MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH MARKETING MIX AND THE BRAND REPUTATION OF NOKIA SYED EHTESHAM ALI College of Management Sciences PAF-Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology E-mail: [email  protected] com Abstract Pakistan’s mobile phone market is growing very fast. The most selling brand in the market is Nokia. A hypothesis was developed that the reputation of a brand is a source of demand and the competitively superior quality image justifies a premium price. In this survey we assessed the reasons for preference of this brand based on established parameters of marketing mix (the 4 Ps). The objective of this study was to measure the extent of preference of these parameters. For this purpose a questionnaire was developed and administered to 240 respondents. The alternate hypothesis that at least one of the predictor variables would have a linear relationship with the dependent variable brand reputation was accepted. R? is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable, which is significantly moderate. Among all the independent variables the slope for the product quality and promotion (advertising & communication) were higher than the rest. Regression coefficients for product quality and promotion (advertising & communication) were 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product quality and promotion (advertising & communication) would cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 95 and 0. 85 rating respectively. 1. 0. 0 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure how elements of marketing mix and their relationship affect the brand reputation of Nokia mobile phone. Though the marketing mix concept such as product, price, place and promotion are very important in analyzing the marketing strategy, the scope of the study was mainly MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 15 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH focused on one aspect of brand equity i. e. brand reputation, the ultimate reflection of the correct blend of all marketing mix. 1. 1. 0 LITERATURE SURVEY 1. 1. 0 Brand Branding has an ancient history. It could be traced back to the times when the ancient Egypt brick makers used to stamped symbols on the bricks for identification and distinction purposes (Farghuhar 1990). Nilson (1998) on the other hand found that ancient farmers used to put symbols on the cattle with the help of hot iron, which meant burning. The word brand has been derived from the Scandinavian word â€Å"branna† that means to burn. In Swedish language the word â€Å"brand†, means fire. Thus when a producer put some marks or symbols on their product it will come in the category of branding (Nilson 1998). One of the advantages of strong brand name is that its helps in penetrating in a new market or a new market category. Globalization has created tremendous brand awareness and this awareness is not dependent on the availability of the products. Czinkota & Ronkainen 2001). For example in Pakistan, brands such as such as McDonald, Pizza Hut and KFC had very strong awareness even before they opened their franchises in Pakistan. 1. 2. 0 Brand Equity Brand equity is a relationship between customers and brands resulting in a profit to be realized at a future date (Wood 2000). Kotler and Armstrong (1996) were of the opinion that measuring brand equity is a tedious job. Nevertheless a powerful brand means high brand equity that helps in achieving ‘higher brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, and strong brand associations’. Some of the major benefits of brand equity are brand awareness and consumer loyalty which helps in reducing marketing costs. Brand is an important equity; therefore, it should be carefully preserved by adopting strategies that would help in maintaining or improving brand awareness, perceived brand quality and positive associations. (Kotler & Armstrong 1996) Ambler and Styles (1997) are of the opinion that brand equity could be measured from two perspectives. One is â€Å"financial evaluation approach† and the other is â€Å"consumer-based approach†. The financial evaluation approach is related to the monetary value of the brand, and the consumer-based approach focuses on the brand itself that is how much value the consumers give to the brand. Brand equity is also considered as an accumulated profit that could be realized at a future date. The brand equity concept can also cause confusion, because of difficulty in measuring it (Ambler & Styles 1997). MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 16 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Importance of brand equity demands need for more practical experience and comparative research to judge and validate the usefulness of brand evaluation methods (Farquhar 1990). The recent merger and acquisition trend has also increased the importance of measuring brand equity (Tauber 1988). The role of brands is now far beyond product differentiation or competing for market share. They are accumulated annuities which the firm can acquire from its balance sheet (Tauber 1998). Firms could have a strong competitive edge over competitors if they could create brand equity ‘through building awareness, image, and linking associations’ (Keller 1998). A stronger brand would always have a better understanding of needs, wants, and preferences of consumers than the brands that are not competitive. Thus stronger brands would help in creating effective marketing programs that could go beyond consumer expectations. (Keller 1998). Brand equity since last one decade has remained popular for attracting new market segments (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995). This phenomenon of brand equity has coincided with the newly emerged but equally popular phenomenon of brand extension (Ambler & Styles 1997). Research shows a two way relationship between brand equity and extension. A brand's equity could influence the success of extensions, and extensions could positively influence brand's equity. The result is that highly valued brand extensions are more successful. Consumers tend to choose those brands that have strong brand equity. This creates strong brand loyalty, and would make it difficult for the customers to switch to the competitors. Brand position of a firm is strongly dependent on the positive image of brands. Strong brands are a major source of differentiation and extending the same towards a specific product category is easier. Successful brand allows firms to demand high prices and are a source of barrier which makes it difficult for consumers to switch to other brands (Pitta & Katsanis 1995. 1. 3. 0 BRAND REPUTATION: According to Aaker (1991, 1996) and Kapferer (1997) both companies and consumers are watchful over the brand reputation of what they sell or buy. Every brand represents distinct values, creates a distinct profile in the minds of the customers in respect to what it stands for. For example in beverage industry Coca-cola stands for â€Å"refreshingâ €  and in car industry Volvo brand is perceived for â€Å"safety and comfort†. Similarly in the mobile industry Sony Ericsson is poised as â€Å"music and entertainment† etc. Globalization and advanced technology have made the market more competitive, thus firms, now, are more brand sensitive. They have observed that the consumer preferences have become homogenous because of globalization and the spread of technology. Thus, both the sellers MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 17 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH and buyers are paying attention to the brand reputation in terms of what they are buying and selling. A consumer during his lifetime undergoes a series of ever changing circumstances and situations. As a result his brand preference shifts with his changing needs. The brand attributes or features must fit to consumers’ need to maintain an ongoing permanent relationship with the brand. The consumers need to have a trust in their preferred brands for continued offering of the desired benefits. According to Browne (1998), if companies fail to ensure a trustworthy, stable brand reputation, the brand’s growth and market share will be affected. Thus a brand reputation is the image of superior quality and added value, which justify a premium price. A reputable brand is a strong asset, which benefits from a high degree of loyalty and stability for future sales (Kapferer 1997). Ultimate goals of highly reputed brands should be to strengthen their image. Low selling brands with low reputation should focus on tailoring their marketing mix and fixing the overall image problem (Baldinger & Rubinson 1996). Firms dealing with mobile handset are also concerned with the reputation of their brands, and how this would affect their international market share. Competition among the mobile companies has forced them to create a brand reputation in customers’ minds. The mobile telephone industry is comprised of mostly multinationals and has financial advantages in their cost structure. This advantage is not available to their purely domestic counterparts (Kapferer, 1997). Brand reputation in the mobile telephone industry is becoming crucial for consumers’ purchasing behaviors. Temporal and Lee (2001) argue that powerful brands are the ones that are built on reputation and this will not change, but would gain more importance in the future. Up Shaw (1995), agrees and claims that branding is the art of trust creation and therefore it is imperative for companies to build a reputable identity in order to maintain trust with their consumers. A highly reputed brand name is considered as a favorable and publicly recognized name that reflects merit, achievement, and reliability. According to Paul and John (1997), the attribute reputation is an estimation of the consistency, over a period of time for an entity. This estimation is based on the entity's willingness and ability to perform an activity repeatedly in a similar fashion and an attribute is some specific part of the entity – price, quality, promotion, distribution and other marketing skills. A brand is a relationship between reputation and promise. Moreover, reputation is a set of expectations. A brand is a combination of tangible and intangible attributes, symbolized in a trademark. If properly managed, brand creates influences and generates value. Temporal and Lee (2000) also define the brand MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 18 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH as a promise to the consumer of what the product, service, or company stands for, and for the kind of experience they can get from it. If the promise is delivered, customers will be satisfied and this will keep them coming back to a company’s product. Kotler (1999) defines three clear advantages, which brands offer to the consumers. Firstly, brands inform the consumer about the product quality. Buyers, who consistently purchase the same brand, are aware that they will get the same quality each time they purchase the product. Secondly, brand names simplify shopping for consumers, by enhancing their ability to find the products that match their wants and needs, as opposed to generic branding. Lastly, brand names allow consumers attention to be drawn to new products that are beneficial to them, since the brand is the first form of recognition. To become successful and hence profitable, brands must develop a positive reputation. A reputable brand is strong assets, which benefits from a high degree of loyalty and thus forms stability of future sales. (Rogerson 1983). Brand reputation involves a continuum ranging from an uncertain feeling that the brand is recognized at the market place, to a belief that it is the number one in the product class by customer (Aaker 1991). This continuum can be represented by different degree of brand reputation known on the market. The brand reputation can be good or bad, strong or weak. It crystallizes how people feel about the reputation based on whatever information they have about the brand. Some companies have not built any brand at all. We can say for the â€Å"unknown brand† that, for it, no reputation exists and it does not affect consumer-buying behavior on the market. 1. 2. 0 MARKETING MIX. 1. 2. 1 PRODUCT (Quality): (Quality): Product quality is an important determinant for the customers for choosing a brand that helps in the development of brand reputation. Quality belongs to the product perspective of a brand’s identity whereas perceived quality is how a brand’s quality is seen by the consumers. It is one of the key dimensions in Aaker’s brand equity model. A higher price is a sign of high quality to the consumers. Perceived quality is a source of consumer satisfaction it makes them to repurchase the product, which leads to loyalty. (Uggla 2001). MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 19 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH 1. 2. 2 PRICE (Affordability): (Affordability): Price influences the brand choice in two ways: (1) Seek the lowest price to avoid financial risk or (2) Seeks the higher price to gain product quality (Macdonald & Sharp 2000). For some consumers, the price is vital particularly when they are purchasing everyday products. Some consumer may choose a brand just because it has the lowest price, while other consumers may choose a brand just because it has the highest perceived price inferring that it is of high quality. 1. 2. 3 PROMOTION (Advertising & Communication): Communication): How can a company build its brand reputation through promotion? A promotion that provides incentives to try a new flavor or new use will be more effective if the brand is familiar and there is no need to combat a consumer skeptical of brand reputation (Pringle & Thompson 1999). Advertising acts as a major tool to enhance brand reputation. The purpose of advertising is to make the consumers to purchase their brands. Advertising is one of the most visible forms of communication. It creates a set of associations the consumers want to have about a brand. If advertising, promotion and packaging support a constant positioning strategy over time, the brand is likely to be strong (Aaker 1991). 1. 2. 4 PLACE (Availability): Firms rarely work alone in creating value for customers and building positive brand reputation. Consistency of supply and availability at convenient locations are vital for brand reputation. Any disagreement between marketing channel members on goals and roles may create channel conflict, which eventually could hamper overall reputation of the specific brand (Kotler, 2006). Reputation is a historical notion based on the sum of the past behaviors. It is prone to change over time and is a function of time. 2. 0. 0 RESEARCH QUESTION: The following research question has been formed in the light of the literature review. How do the mobile phone buyers perceive the brand reputation of Nokia in terms of marketing mix? 3. 0. 0 METHODOLOGY: MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 20 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Based on the literature survey and the above-identified independent and dependent variables, a close-ended questionnaire was developed. Questionnaire was based on a total of 14 questions; seven were related to personal data and the rest were related to the subject study that is measuring brand reputation in terms of marketing mix. The sample size for the study was 240 and it was chosen non-randomly and was personally administered by my students. The analysis was inclusive of the measures of central tendencies and the measure of dispersion. The hypothesis was tested through multiple regressions. 4. SURVEY FINDINGS: 4. 1 MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCIES & DISPERSION: The respondents’ opinions on the determinants of marketing mix and brand reputation were obtained. The determinants for marketing mix were product (quality), price (affordability), promotion (advertising and communication) and place (availability). The determinants for brand reputation were favorability, public recogn ition, reliability and consistency. The summarized results related to the measures of the central tendencies and dispersion are presented below: Table Number One Measure of Central Tendencies Product (Quality) Mean St. Error Median Mode St. Dev. S. Var. Kurtosis Skew ness Range Minimum Maximum Sum Count 4. 74 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 1. 13 0. 19 -0. 77 -0. 98 1. 00 4. 00 5. 00 1138 240 Price (Affordability) 3. 82 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 0. 81 0. 18 -0. 39 0. 08 1. 00 4. 00 5. 00 1144 240 Promotion (Adv. & Communication) 4. 45 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 1. 08 0. 29 -0. 18 -0. 82 2. 00 3. 00 5. 00 1107 240 Place (Availability) 4. 02 0. 03 4. 00 4. 00 1. 04 0. 23 1. 23 -0. 74 3. 00 2. 00 5. 00 1017 240 Brand Reputation 4. 89 0. 05 5. 00 5. 00 1. 16 0. 49 3. 69 -1. 09 3. 00 2. 00 5. 00 1117 240 MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 21 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH M ark e ting M ix viz. Brand Re putation 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Product Price Promotion Place Brand Reputatioon 4. 74 3. 82 4. 45 4. 89 4. 02 The respondents’ opinions on dependent variable brand reputation was the highest with a mean of 4. 89, whereas the rating on product (quality) ranked second with a mean of 4. 79 and the price (affordability) was the lowest with a mean of 3. 82. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinion on independent dimensions â€Å"price (affordability)† was the least (0. 1) as compare to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is less polarization and difference in the respondents’ opinion on the dimension â€Å"price (affordability)†. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinion on dimension â€Å"product (quality)† was the highest i. e1. 13 as compared to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is a high polarization of respondents†™ opinions on the â€Å"product (quality)† dimension. Skewness for all the determinants of brand reputation was negative except price (affordability)† with the value of 0. 08. The negative skewness indicates that the majority of the respondents’ opinions on the respective determinants were below the average level and the distribution curve is negatively skewed. 4. 2. 0 BRAND REPUTATION The respondents’ opinions were obtained in terms of favorability, recognizably, reliability, and consistency. The summarized results are presented below: TABLE NUMBER-2 REPUTATION OF NOKIA Most favorable Most Publicity Most Reliable Most Consistent MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 22 MARKETING MIX & BRAND Recognized 4. 01 4 3. 1 RESEARCH 3. 63 4. 5 4 3. 5 3 2. 5 2 1. 5 1 0. 5 0 4. 01 4 3. 1 3. 63 Most f avorable Most Publicity Recognized MostReliable Most Consisten The level of favorability and recognize ability of Nokia brand was the highest with a mean of 4. 04 and 4. 0. The perception on the consistency and reliability were found to be on the lower side with a mean of 3. 1 and 3. 63 respectively. 4. 1. 2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING: Literature survey suggests that, buyers perceive or build brand reputation of mobile phones in terms of (1) product (quality), (2) price (affordability), (3) promotion (adv. & communication) and (4) place (availability). Based on the theoretical framework, the following hypotheses were developed. H1o: Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that no linear relationship exists between Nokia’s dependent variable â€Å"brand reputation† and independent variables such as product, price, promotion, and place. H1A: At least one of the predictor variables has a linear relationship with the dependent variable â€Å"brand reputation†. STATISTICAL REPRESENTATION: The statistical representation of the above hypothesis is presented below. H1O: ? 1= ? 2= ? 3= ? 4=0 H1A: ? 1? ?2? ?3? ?4? 0 The above hypothesis was tested through multiple regressions for brand NOKIA and the summarized results are presented below. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 23 MARKETING MIX & BRAND TABLE NUMBER-2 MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Sqr. Standard Error Observations RESEARCH 0. 69 0. 53 0. 52 0. 44 240. 00 Df Regression Residual Total 4. 00 234. 00 240. 00 Coefficients Intercept Product(quality) Price(affordability) Promotion(Adv. & Comm. ) Place(Availability) 0. 72 0. 95 0. 27 0. 85 0. 34 SS 12. 01 13. 05 25. 06 Std. Error 0. 49 0. 09 0. 03 0. 03 0. 02 MS 3. 00 0. 06 F 53. 82 Significance F 0. 00 t Stat 1. 48 2. 61 7. 57 6. 83 7. 41 Pvalue 0. 14 0. 02 0. 00 0. 01 0. 00 Lower 95% -0. 24 0. 06 0. 16 0. 15 0. 13 Upper 95% 1. 68 0. 42 0. 27 0. 27 0. 22 R? or the brand NOKIA is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable which is significantly strong. Among all the independent variables the slope for the product and promotion are the highest, this means that as compared to other independent variables, product and promotion of Nokia b rand cell phone has stronger relationships with the dependent variable â€Å"brand reputation†. Regression coefficient for product and promotion are 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product (quality) and promotion (adv. communication) will cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 95 and 0. 85 rating respectively. The F-value is high and falls in the critical region that means variations of independent variables are unequal; this indicates that the results are not biased. Except for the coefficient of product and promotion, no other coefficient is statistically significant. 5. 0 CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION: MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 24 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Based on the survey findings the following conclusions have been drawn: †¢ According to the respondents’ opinion the rating on dependent variable brand reputation was highest with the mean of 4. 9, whereas the rating on product (quality) was the second highest with a mean of 4. 79 and the rating on price (affordability) was lowest with a mean of 3. 82. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinion on independent dimensions â€Å"price (affordability)† was the least (0. 81) as compared to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is less polarization in the respondents’ opinion on the dimension â€Å"price (affordability)†. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinion on dimension â€Å"product (quality)† was the highest 1. 13. This indicates that there is high polarization of respondents’ opinion on the â€Å"product (quality)† dimension. Skewness for all the determinants of brand reputation were negative except for â€Å"price (affordability)† with the value of 0. 08. The negative skewness indicates that the majority of the respondents’ opinions on the respective determinants were below the average level and the distribution curve is negatively skewed. The alternate hypothesis that at least one of the predictor variables would have a linear relationship with the dependent variable brand reputation was accepted. R? is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable, which is significantly strong. The slope for product’s (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) were the highest; this means that as compared to other independent variables, product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) of the Nokia brand cell phone have stronger relationships with the dependent variable brand reputation. Regression coefficient for product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) were 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) will cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 5 and 0. 85 rating respectively. †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ ANNEXURE 1 Q1) Age: (in years) 15 – 25 QUESTIONNAIRE (DEMOGRAPHIC DATA) 26 – 35 36 – 45 46– above MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 25 MARKETING MIX & BRAND Q2) Qualification: ? Matriculation Others —-Q3) Gender: ? Male Q4) Marital Status: ? Single Q5) Profession: Market ing Teacher Q6) Income: Up to 20,000 above RESEARCH ?Intermediate ?Graduation Masters ?Female Married Banking Engineering Other(s) please specify†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 21,000 – 30,000 31,000 – 40,000 Doctor 41,000 and Q7) Please mark the area of your residence Sadder Defence Clifton Gulshan F. B. Area Nazimabad PECHS Other(s) — Rate the following statements in terms of your answer (5 being highly agreed and 1 being highly disagreed) MARKETING MIX Q8) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of â€Å"Product† i. e quality. 5 4 3 2 1 Q9) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of â€Å"Price† i. e. affordability 5 4 3 2 1 Q10) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of â€Å"Promotion† i. e. Advertising & Communication. 5 4 3 2 1 Q11) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of â€Å"Place† i. e. Convenience in availability. 5 4 3 2 BRAND REPUTATION Q12) I consider Nokia as most favorable brand in terms of brand reputation. 4 3 2 1 Q13) I consider Nokia as most publicly recognized brand in terms of brand reputation. 5 4 3 2 1 Q14) I consider Nokia as most reliable brand in terms of brand reputation. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 26 1 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH 5 4 3 2 1 Q15) I consider Nokia as most consistent brand in terms of brand reputat ion. 5 4 3 2 1 ANNEXURE 2 REFERENCES Aaker, D. A. , 1991. , Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of the Brand Name. NewYork: The Free press. Aaker, D. A. , 1996. , Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press. Aaker, D. A, 2004. Brand Portfolio Strategy, New York: Free Press. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 27 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Ambler, T. , & Styles, C. , 1997. Brand development versus new product development: toward a process model of extension decisions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(4), p. 222-234. Browne, K. , 1999. Nokia’s Brilliant Branding. Finance Week – South Africa. Vol. (22), p. 12-26. Baldinger, A & Rubinson, J. , 1996. , Brand Loyalty: the Link between Attitude and Behavior. Journal of Advertising research, Vol. (2), p. 84-97. Czinkota, M. & Ronkainen, M. , 2001. , International Business (6th ed. ). Fort Worth: Harcourt College. Farquhar, P. , 1990. Managing brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, August/September) 30, RC 7 – RC 12. Keller, K. L. , 2003. Strategic brand management, Building Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd Ed. , Upper Sadle River. . Kotler, P, & Armstrong, G. , 1996. Principles of Marketing. (7th ed.. USA: Prentice Hall, Inc. Pringle, H. Thompson, M. , 1999. Brand Spirit: how cause related marketing builds brands. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Jean, N. K, 1997. Strategic Brand Management, Princeton: University Press Princeton. Kapferer, J. N. ,1997. Strategic Brand Management. 2nd. London:Hove. Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. & Saubers, J. & Wong, V. , 1999. Principles of marketing. 2nd ed. England: Prentice Hall press. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L, 2006. Marketing Management 12th ed. Indiana: Indiana University Press. Macdonald, E. K. & Sharp, B. M. 2000. Brand awareness effects on consumer decision-making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication: Journal of Business Research, Vol. (48), p5-15. Nilson, H. T. , 1998. Competitive Branding-Winning the Marketplace with Value Added Brands. Chichester: Wiley,cop. Paul, H. & John, M. , 1997. Pricing Strategy & Practice. Bradford: 5(1),p. 25. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 28 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Pringle, H. & Thompson, M. , 1999. Brand Spirit: how cause related marketing builds brands: Journal of Marketing, Vol. (21), p. 61-78. Pitta, A. & Katsanis, P. L. 1996. Understanding Brand Equity for Sucessful Brand Extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 12(4),51-64. Rogerson, W. P, 1983. Reputation and Product Quality, The Bell Journal of economics, Vol. (2), p. 508-516. Tauber, E. , 1988. Brand leverage: Strategy for growth in a cost- control world. Journal of Advertising Research, ( August/September). 8, 26-30. Temporal, P & Lee, K. C. 2001. Hi-Touch Branding, Creating Brand Power in the Age of technology. Journal of Information & technology, 94(2), p. 67-86. Uggla, H. , 2001. What makes winning brands different: The hidden method behind the world’s most successful brands. The journal of marketing, 18(3), p. 24-41. Upshaw, L. B. 1995. .Building Brand Identity: A strategy for success in a hos tile marketplace. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Wood, L. , 2000. Brands and brand equity: definition and management. Management Decision, 38(9), 662-669. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 29

Marketing Mix and the Brand Reputation of Nokia

Market Forces April 2008 Vol. 4 No. MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH MARKETING MIX AND THE BRAND REPUTATION OF NOKIA SYED EHTESHAM ALI College of Management Sciences PAF-Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology E-mail: [email  protected] com Abstract Pakistan’s mobile phone market is growing very fast. The most selling brand in the market is Nokia. A hypothesis was developed that the reputation of a brand is a source of demand and the competitively superior quality image justifies a premium price. In this survey we assessed the reasons for preference of this brand based on established parameters of marketing mix (the 4 Ps). The objective of this study was to measure the extent of preference of these parameters. For this purpose a questionnaire was developed and administered to 240 respondents. The alternate hypothesis that at least one of the predictor variables would have a linear relationship with the dependent variable brand reputation was accepted. R? is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable, which is significantly moderate. Among all the independent variables the slope for the product quality and promotion (advertising & communication) were higher than the rest. Regression coefficients for product quality and promotion (advertising & communication) were 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product quality and promotion (advertising & communication) would cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 95 and 0. 85 rating respectively. 1. 0. 0 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure how elements of marketing mix and their relationship affect the brand reputation of Nokia mobile phone. Though the marketing mix concept such as product, price, place and promotion are very important in analyzing the marketing strategy, the scope of the study was mainly MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 15 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH focused on one aspect of brand equity i. e. brand reputation, the ultimate reflection of the correct blend of all marketing mix. 1. 1. 0 LITERATURE SURVEY 1. 1. 0 Brand Branding has an ancient history. It could be traced back to the times when the ancient Egypt brick makers used to stamped symbols on the bricks for identification and distinction purposes (Farghuhar 1990). Nilson (1998) on the other hand found that ancient farmers used to put symbols on the cattle with the help of hot iron, which meant burning. The word brand has been derived from the Scandinavian word â€Å"branna† that means to burn. In Swedish language the word â€Å"brand†, means fire. Thus when a producer put some marks or symbols on their product it will come in the category of branding (Nilson 1998). One of the advantages of strong brand name is that its helps in penetrating in a new market or a new market category. Globalization has created tremendous brand awareness and this awareness is not dependent on the availability of the products. Czinkota & Ronkainen 2001). For example in Pakistan, brands such as such as McDonald, Pizza Hut and KFC had very strong awareness even before they opened their franchises in Pakistan. 1. 2. 0 Brand Equity Brand equity is a relationship between customers and brands resulting in a profit to be realized at a future date (Wood 2000). Kotler and Armstrong (1996) were of the opinion that measuring brand equity is a tedious job. Nevertheless a powerful brand means high brand equity that helps in achieving ‘higher brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, and strong brand associations’. Some of the major benefits of brand equity are brand awareness and consumer loyalty which helps in reducing marketing costs. Brand is an important equity; therefore, it should be carefully preserved by adopting strategies that would help in maintaining or improving brand awareness, perceived brand quality and positive associations. (Kotler & Armstrong 1996) Ambler and Styles (1997) are of the opinion that brand equity could be measured from two perspectives. One is â€Å"financial evaluation approach† and the other is â€Å"consumer-based approach†. The financial evaluation approach is related to the monetary value of the brand, and the consumer-based approach focuses on the brand itself that is how much value the consumers give to the brand. Brand equity is also considered as an accumulated profit that could be realized at a future date. The brand equity concept can also cause confusion, because of difficulty in measuring it (Ambler & Styles 1997). MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 16 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Importance of brand equity demands need for more practical experience and comparative research to judge and validate the usefulness of brand evaluation methods (Farquhar 1990). The recent merger and acquisition trend has also increased the importance of measuring brand equity (Tauber 1988). The role of brands is now far beyond product differentiation or competing for market share. They are accumulated annuities which the firm can acquire from its balance sheet (Tauber 1998). Firms could have a strong competitive edge over competitors if they could create brand equity ‘through building awareness, image, and linking associations’ (Keller 1998). A stronger brand would always have a better understanding of needs, wants, and preferences of consumers than the brands that are not competitive. Thus stronger brands would help in creating effective marketing programs that could go beyond consumer expectations. (Keller 1998). Brand equity since last one decade has remained popular for attracting new market segments (Pitta & Katsanis, 1995). This phenomenon of brand equity has coincided with the newly emerged but equally popular phenomenon of brand extension (Ambler & Styles 1997). Research shows a two way relationship between brand equity and extension. A brand's equity could influence the success of extensions, and extensions could positively influence brand's equity. The result is that highly valued brand extensions are more successful. Consumers tend to choose those brands that have strong brand equity. This creates strong brand loyalty, and would make it difficult for the customers to switch to the competitors. Brand position of a firm is strongly dependent on the positive image of brands. Strong brands are a major source of differentiation and extending the same towards a specific product category is easier. Successful brand allows firms to demand high prices and are a source of barrier which makes it difficult for consumers to switch to other brands (Pitta & Katsanis 1995. 1. 3. 0 BRAND REPUTATION: According to Aaker (1991, 1996) and Kapferer (1997) both companies and consumers are watchful over the brand reputation of what they sell or buy. Every brand represents distinct values, creates a distinct profile in the minds of the customers in respect to what it stands for. For example in beverage industry Coca-cola stands for â€Å"refreshingâ €  and in car industry Volvo brand is perceived for â€Å"safety and comfort†. Similarly in the mobile industry Sony Ericsson is poised as â€Å"music and entertainment† etc. Globalization and advanced technology have made the market more competitive, thus firms, now, are more brand sensitive. They have observed that the consumer preferences have become homogenous because of globalization and the spread of technology. Thus, both the sellers MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 17 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH and buyers are paying attention to the brand reputation in terms of what they are buying and selling. A consumer during his lifetime undergoes a series of ever changing circumstances and situations. As a result his brand preference shifts with his changing needs. The brand attributes or features must fit to consumers’ need to maintain an ongoing permanent relationship with the brand. The consumers need to have a trust in their preferred brands for continued offering of the desired benefits. According to Browne (1998), if companies fail to ensure a trustworthy, stable brand reputation, the brand’s growth and market share will be affected. Thus a brand reputation is the image of superior quality and added value, which justify a premium price. A reputable brand is a strong asset, which benefits from a high degree of loyalty and stability for future sales (Kapferer 1997). Ultimate goals of highly reputed brands should be to strengthen their image. Low selling brands with low reputation should focus on tailoring their marketing mix and fixing the overall image problem (Baldinger & Rubinson 1996). Firms dealing with mobile handset are also concerned with the reputation of their brands, and how this would affect their international market share. Competition among the mobile companies has forced them to create a brand reputation in customers’ minds. The mobile telephone industry is comprised of mostly multinationals and has financial advantages in their cost structure. This advantage is not available to their purely domestic counterparts (Kapferer, 1997). Brand reputation in the mobile telephone industry is becoming crucial for consumers’ purchasing behaviors. Temporal and Lee (2001) argue that powerful brands are the ones that are built on reputation and this will not change, but would gain more importance in the future. Up Shaw (1995), agrees and claims that branding is the art of trust creation and therefore it is imperative for companies to build a reputable identity in order to maintain trust with their consumers. A highly reputed brand name is considered as a favorable and publicly recognized name that reflects merit, achievement, and reliability. According to Paul and John (1997), the attribute reputation is an estimation of the consistency, over a period of time for an entity. This estimation is based on the entity's willingness and ability to perform an activity repeatedly in a similar fashion and an attribute is some specific part of the entity – price, quality, promotion, distribution and other marketing skills. A brand is a relationship between reputation and promise. Moreover, reputation is a set of expectations. A brand is a combination of tangible and intangible attributes, symbolized in a trademark. If properly managed, brand creates influences and generates value. Temporal and Lee (2000) also define the brand MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 18 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH as a promise to the consumer of what the product, service, or company stands for, and for the kind of experience they can get from it. If the promise is delivered, customers will be satisfied and this will keep them coming back to a company’s product. Kotler (1999) defines three clear advantages, which brands offer to the consumers. Firstly, brands inform the consumer about the product quality. Buyers, who consistently purchase the same brand, are aware that they will get the same quality each time they purchase the product. Secondly, brand names simplify shopping for consumers, by enhancing their ability to find the products that match their wants and needs, as opposed to generic branding. Lastly, brand names allow consumers attention to be drawn to new products that are beneficial to them, since the brand is the first form of recognition. To become successful and hence profitable, brands must develop a positive reputation. A reputable brand is strong assets, which benefits from a high degree of loyalty and thus forms stability of future sales. (Rogerson 1983). Brand reputation involves a continuum ranging from an uncertain feeling that the brand is recognized at the market place, to a belief that it is the number one in the product class by customer (Aaker 1991). This continuum can be represented by different degree of brand reputation known on the market. The brand reputation can be good or bad, strong or weak. It crystallizes how people feel about the reputation based on whatever information they have about the brand. Some companies have not built any brand at all. We can say for the â€Å"unknown brand† that, for it, no reputation exists and it does not affect consumer-buying behavior on the market. 1. 2. 0 MARKETING MIX. 1. 2. 1 PRODUCT (Quality): (Quality): Product quality is an important determinant for the customers for choosing a brand that helps in the development of brand reputation. Quality belongs to the product perspective of a brand’s identity whereas perceived quality is how a brand’s quality is seen by the consumers. It is one of the key dimensions in Aaker’s brand equity model. A higher price is a sign of high quality to the consumers. Perceived quality is a source of consumer satisfaction it makes them to repurchase the product, which leads to loyalty. (Uggla 2001). MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 19 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH 1. 2. 2 PRICE (Affordability): (Affordability): Price influences the brand choice in two ways: (1) Seek the lowest price to avoid financial risk or (2) Seeks the higher price to gain product quality (Macdonald & Sharp 2000). For some consumers, the price is vital particularly when they are purchasing everyday products. Some consumer may choose a brand just because it has the lowest price, while other consumers may choose a brand just because it has the highest perceived price inferring that it is of high quality. 1. 2. 3 PROMOTION (Advertising & Communication): Communication): How can a company build its brand reputation through promotion? A promotion that provides incentives to try a new flavor or new use will be more effective if the brand is familiar and there is no need to combat a consumer skeptical of brand reputation (Pringle & Thompson 1999). Advertising acts as a major tool to enhance brand reputation. The purpose of advertising is to make the consumers to purchase their brands. Advertising is one of the most visible forms of communication. It creates a set of associations the consumers want to have about a brand. If advertising, promotion and packaging support a constant positioning strategy over time, the brand is likely to be strong (Aaker 1991). 1. 2. 4 PLACE (Availability): Firms rarely work alone in creating value for customers and building positive brand reputation. Consistency of supply and availability at convenient locations are vital for brand reputation. Any disagreement between marketing channel members on goals and roles may create channel conflict, which eventually could hamper overall reputation of the specific brand (Kotler, 2006). Reputation is a historical notion based on the sum of the past behaviors. It is prone to change over time and is a function of time. 2. 0. 0 RESEARCH QUESTION: The following research question has been formed in the light of the literature review. How do the mobile phone buyers perceive the brand reputation of Nokia in terms of marketing mix? 3. 0. 0 METHODOLOGY: MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 20 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Based on the literature survey and the above-identified independent and dependent variables, a close-ended questionnaire was developed. Questionnaire was based on a total of 14 questions; seven were related to personal data and the rest were related to the subject study that is measuring brand reputation in terms of marketing mix. The sample size for the study was 240 and it was chosen non-randomly and was personally administered by my students. The analysis was inclusive of the measures of central tendencies and the measure of dispersion. The hypothesis was tested through multiple regressions. 4. SURVEY FINDINGS: 4. 1 MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCIES & DISPERSION: The respondents’ opinions on the determinants of marketing mix and brand reputation were obtained. The determinants for marketing mix were product (quality), price (affordability), promotion (advertising and communication) and place (availability). The determinants for brand reputation were favorability, public recogn ition, reliability and consistency. The summarized results related to the measures of the central tendencies and dispersion are presented below: Table Number One Measure of Central Tendencies Product (Quality) Mean St. Error Median Mode St. Dev. S. Var. Kurtosis Skew ness Range Minimum Maximum Sum Count 4. 74 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 1. 13 0. 19 -0. 77 -0. 98 1. 00 4. 00 5. 00 1138 240 Price (Affordability) 3. 82 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 0. 81 0. 18 -0. 39 0. 08 1. 00 4. 00 5. 00 1144 240 Promotion (Adv. & Communication) 4. 45 0. 03 5. 00 5. 00 1. 08 0. 29 -0. 18 -0. 82 2. 00 3. 00 5. 00 1107 240 Place (Availability) 4. 02 0. 03 4. 00 4. 00 1. 04 0. 23 1. 23 -0. 74 3. 00 2. 00 5. 00 1017 240 Brand Reputation 4. 89 0. 05 5. 00 5. 00 1. 16 0. 49 3. 69 -1. 09 3. 00 2. 00 5. 00 1117 240 MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 21 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH M ark e ting M ix viz. Brand Re putation 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Product Price Promotion Place Brand Reputatioon 4. 74 3. 82 4. 45 4. 89 4. 02 The respondents’ opinions on dependent variable brand reputation was the highest with a mean of 4. 89, whereas the rating on product (quality) ranked second with a mean of 4. 79 and the price (affordability) was the lowest with a mean of 3. 82. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinion on independent dimensions â€Å"price (affordability)† was the least (0. 1) as compare to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is less polarization and difference in the respondents’ opinion on the dimension â€Å"price (affordability)†. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinion on dimension â€Å"product (quality)† was the highest i. e1. 13 as compared to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is a high polarization of respondents†™ opinions on the â€Å"product (quality)† dimension. Skewness for all the determinants of brand reputation was negative except price (affordability)† with the value of 0. 08. The negative skewness indicates that the majority of the respondents’ opinions on the respective determinants were below the average level and the distribution curve is negatively skewed. 4. 2. 0 BRAND REPUTATION The respondents’ opinions were obtained in terms of favorability, recognizably, reliability, and consistency. The summarized results are presented below: TABLE NUMBER-2 REPUTATION OF NOKIA Most favorable Most Publicity Most Reliable Most Consistent MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 22 MARKETING MIX & BRAND Recognized 4. 01 4 3. 1 RESEARCH 3. 63 4. 5 4 3. 5 3 2. 5 2 1. 5 1 0. 5 0 4. 01 4 3. 1 3. 63 Most f avorable Most Publicity Recognized MostReliable Most Consisten The level of favorability and recognize ability of Nokia brand was the highest with a mean of 4. 04 and 4. 0. The perception on the consistency and reliability were found to be on the lower side with a mean of 3. 1 and 3. 63 respectively. 4. 1. 2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING: Literature survey suggests that, buyers perceive or build brand reputation of mobile phones in terms of (1) product (quality), (2) price (affordability), (3) promotion (adv. & communication) and (4) place (availability). Based on the theoretical framework, the following hypotheses were developed. H1o: Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that no linear relationship exists between Nokia’s dependent variable â€Å"brand reputation† and independent variables such as product, price, promotion, and place. H1A: At least one of the predictor variables has a linear relationship with the dependent variable â€Å"brand reputation†. STATISTICAL REPRESENTATION: The statistical representation of the above hypothesis is presented below. H1O: ? 1= ? 2= ? 3= ? 4=0 H1A: ? 1? ?2? ?3? ?4? 0 The above hypothesis was tested through multiple regressions for brand NOKIA and the summarized results are presented below. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 23 MARKETING MIX & BRAND TABLE NUMBER-2 MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Sqr. Standard Error Observations RESEARCH 0. 69 0. 53 0. 52 0. 44 240. 00 Df Regression Residual Total 4. 00 234. 00 240. 00 Coefficients Intercept Product(quality) Price(affordability) Promotion(Adv. & Comm. ) Place(Availability) 0. 72 0. 95 0. 27 0. 85 0. 34 SS 12. 01 13. 05 25. 06 Std. Error 0. 49 0. 09 0. 03 0. 03 0. 02 MS 3. 00 0. 06 F 53. 82 Significance F 0. 00 t Stat 1. 48 2. 61 7. 57 6. 83 7. 41 Pvalue 0. 14 0. 02 0. 00 0. 01 0. 00 Lower 95% -0. 24 0. 06 0. 16 0. 15 0. 13 Upper 95% 1. 68 0. 42 0. 27 0. 27 0. 22 R? or the brand NOKIA is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable which is significantly strong. Among all the independent variables the slope for the product and promotion are the highest, this means that as compared to other independent variables, product and promotion of Nokia b rand cell phone has stronger relationships with the dependent variable â€Å"brand reputation†. Regression coefficient for product and promotion are 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product (quality) and promotion (adv. communication) will cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 95 and 0. 85 rating respectively. The F-value is high and falls in the critical region that means variations of independent variables are unequal; this indicates that the results are not biased. Except for the coefficient of product and promotion, no other coefficient is statistically significant. 5. 0 CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION: MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 24 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Based on the survey findings the following conclusions have been drawn: †¢ According to the respondents’ opinion the rating on dependent variable brand reputation was highest with the mean of 4. 9, whereas the rating on product (quality) was the second highest with a mean of 4. 79 and the rating on price (affordability) was lowest with a mean of 3. 82. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinion on independent dimensions â€Å"price (affordability)† was the least (0. 81) as compared to the other dimensions. This indicates that there is less polarization in the respondents’ opinion on the dimension â€Å"price (affordability)†. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinion on dimension â€Å"product (quality)† was the highest 1. 13. This indicates that there is high polarization of respondents’ opinion on the â€Å"product (quality)† dimension. Skewness for all the determinants of brand reputation were negative except for â€Å"price (affordability)† with the value of 0. 08. The negative skewness indicates that the majority of the respondents’ opinions on the respective determinants were below the average level and the distribution curve is negatively skewed. The alternate hypothesis that at least one of the predictor variables would have a linear relationship with the dependent variable brand reputation was accepted. R? is 0. 53, which indicates that about 53% of the variation on the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variable, which is significantly strong. The slope for product’s (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) were the highest; this means that as compared to other independent variables, product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) of the Nokia brand cell phone have stronger relationships with the dependent variable brand reputation. Regression coefficient for product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) were 0. 95 and 0. 85 respectively. This means that an increase in one rating (on the scale of five to one) of product (quality) and promotion (advertising & communication) will cause brand reputation to increase by 0. 5 and 0. 85 rating respectively. †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ ANNEXURE 1 Q1) Age: (in years) 15 – 25 QUESTIONNAIRE (DEMOGRAPHIC DATA) 26 – 35 36 – 45 46– above MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 25 MARKETING MIX & BRAND Q2) Qualification: ? Matriculation Others —-Q3) Gender: ? Male Q4) Marital Status: ? Single Q5) Profession: Market ing Teacher Q6) Income: Up to 20,000 above RESEARCH ?Intermediate ?Graduation Masters ?Female Married Banking Engineering Other(s) please specify†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 21,000 – 30,000 31,000 – 40,000 Doctor 41,000 and Q7) Please mark the area of your residence Sadder Defence Clifton Gulshan F. B. Area Nazimabad PECHS Other(s) — Rate the following statements in terms of your answer (5 being highly agreed and 1 being highly disagreed) MARKETING MIX Q8) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of â€Å"Product† i. e quality. 5 4 3 2 1 Q9) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of â€Å"Price† i. e. affordability 5 4 3 2 1 Q10) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of â€Å"Promotion† i. e. Advertising & Communication. 5 4 3 2 1 Q11) Rate the brand reputation of Nokia brands in terms of â€Å"Place† i. e. Convenience in availability. 5 4 3 2 BRAND REPUTATION Q12) I consider Nokia as most favorable brand in terms of brand reputation. 4 3 2 1 Q13) I consider Nokia as most publicly recognized brand in terms of brand reputation. 5 4 3 2 1 Q14) I consider Nokia as most reliable brand in terms of brand reputation. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 26 1 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH 5 4 3 2 1 Q15) I consider Nokia as most consistent brand in terms of brand reputat ion. 5 4 3 2 1 ANNEXURE 2 REFERENCES Aaker, D. A. , 1991. , Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of the Brand Name. NewYork: The Free press. Aaker, D. A. , 1996. , Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press. Aaker, D. A, 2004. Brand Portfolio Strategy, New York: Free Press. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 27 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Ambler, T. , & Styles, C. , 1997. Brand development versus new product development: toward a process model of extension decisions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(4), p. 222-234. Browne, K. , 1999. Nokia’s Brilliant Branding. Finance Week – South Africa. Vol. (22), p. 12-26. Baldinger, A & Rubinson, J. , 1996. , Brand Loyalty: the Link between Attitude and Behavior. Journal of Advertising research, Vol. (2), p. 84-97. Czinkota, M. & Ronkainen, M. , 2001. , International Business (6th ed. ). Fort Worth: Harcourt College. Farquhar, P. , 1990. Managing brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, August/September) 30, RC 7 – RC 12. Keller, K. L. , 2003. Strategic brand management, Building Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd Ed. , Upper Sadle River. . Kotler, P, & Armstrong, G. , 1996. Principles of Marketing. (7th ed.. USA: Prentice Hall, Inc. Pringle, H. Thompson, M. , 1999. Brand Spirit: how cause related marketing builds brands. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Jean, N. K, 1997. Strategic Brand Management, Princeton: University Press Princeton. Kapferer, J. N. ,1997. Strategic Brand Management. 2nd. London:Hove. Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. & Saubers, J. & Wong, V. , 1999. Principles of marketing. 2nd ed. England: Prentice Hall press. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L, 2006. Marketing Management 12th ed. Indiana: Indiana University Press. Macdonald, E. K. & Sharp, B. M. 2000. Brand awareness effects on consumer decision-making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication: Journal of Business Research, Vol. (48), p5-15. Nilson, H. T. , 1998. Competitive Branding-Winning the Marketplace with Value Added Brands. Chichester: Wiley,cop. Paul, H. & John, M. , 1997. Pricing Strategy & Practice. Bradford: 5(1),p. 25. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 28 MARKETING MIX & BRAND RESEARCH Pringle, H. & Thompson, M. , 1999. Brand Spirit: how cause related marketing builds brands: Journal of Marketing, Vol. (21), p. 61-78. Pitta, A. & Katsanis, P. L. 1996. Understanding Brand Equity for Sucessful Brand Extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 12(4),51-64. Rogerson, W. P, 1983. Reputation and Product Quality, The Bell Journal of economics, Vol. (2), p. 508-516. Tauber, E. , 1988. Brand leverage: Strategy for growth in a cost- control world. Journal of Advertising Research, ( August/September). 8, 26-30. Temporal, P & Lee, K. C. 2001. Hi-Touch Branding, Creating Brand Power in the Age of technology. Journal of Information & technology, 94(2), p. 67-86. Uggla, H. , 2001. What makes winning brands different: The hidden method behind the world’s most successful brands. The journal of marketing, 18(3), p. 24-41. Upshaw, L. B. 1995. .Building Brand Identity: A strategy for success in a hos tile marketplace. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Wood, L. , 2000. Brands and brand equity: definition and management. Management Decision, 38(9), 662-669. MARKET FORCES APRIL-2008 29