Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered. The

sequence of the specific problems raised in Chapter 1 is used to facilitate the

presentation, analysis and interpretation of data.

1. Description of profile

1.1 Sex

Table 1
Profile of the students in terms of Gender

Gender of the Respondents No. Percentage

Male 115 44%
Female 145 56%
Total 260 100%

This table shows that the profile of the respondents in terms of gender, male got a

total score of one hundred fifteen (115) out of two hundred sixty with a percentage

rate of 44% while female got a total of one hundred forty-five out of two hundred

sixty with a percentage of 56%.

 1.2 Year Level

Table 4

Profile of the students in terms of Year Level

Year Level of the Respondents No. Percentage

First year 76 29%
Second year - -
Third year 120 46%
Fourth year 64 25%
TOTAL 260 100%

The table 4 revealed the profile of the respondents in terms of year level, first year

students got a score of seventy-six (76) while second year got zero, third year got a

score of one hundred twenty (120) and lastly fourth year students got a score of sixty-

four (64) out of two hundred sixty as a total respondents.

2. Description of brand loyalty dimension as to:

2.1 Brand Image

Table 5

Brand Loyalty Dimension as to Brand Image

Statements Mea Verbal Description

n
Other people judge me by the kind of 3.12 Uncertain
mobile phone I use.
I think my cell phone brand is well known 3.81 Agree
and prestigious.
I think my cell phone brand is fashionable 3.71 Agree
 and elegant.

I think my cell phone is number one among 3.4 Uncertain

cell phone brands.
Grand Mean 3.51 Agree

This table shows how the respondents in terms of brand image stated that their

cell phone brand is well known and prestigious got a highest mean score of 3.81 with an

adjectival description of “Agree” while on the other hand stated that their cell phone is

number one among cell phone brands got a lowest mean grade of 3.4 with an adjectival

description of “uncertain”. While their cell phone brand is fashionable and elegant got a

mean score of 3.71, and lastly other people judge them by the kind of mobile phone they used

got a mean score of 3.12.

According to the interview conducted, some respondents or students they can’t

say that their cell phones they are using is not really the number one brand among them

and they are not judge according to what cell phones they are using.

2.2 Brand Quality

Table 6

Brand Loyalty Dimension as to Brand Quality

Statements Mea Verbal Description

n
The quality of my cell phone is good. 3.73 Agree
I think my cell phone brand have a 3.58 Agree
reputation for high quality.
My cell brand offers very durable products. 3.58 Agree
 My cell phone brand is more than just a 3.72 Agree
product for me.
Grand Mean 3.65 Agree

The table above shows that the view point of the respondents in terms of brand

quality stated that the quality of their cell phone is good with a mean score of 3.73 followed

by their cell phone brand is more than just a product for them with a mean score of 3.72,

while cell phone brand have a reputation for high quality and cell brand offers very durable

products got the same mean score of 3.58 with an adjectival description of all statement

“Agree”.

Above mention results the grand mean of brand loyalty in terms of brand quality is

3.65 with an adjectival description of “Agree” based on the interview conducted by the

researchers, meaning to say the overall statements shown above had agreed towards the

respondents of the study being conducted by the proponents.

2.3 Brand Experience

Table 7

Brand Loyalty Dimension as to Brand Experience

Statements Mea Verbal Description

n
My cell phone brand increase desire to learn 3.45 Uncertain
new thing and problem solving.
My cell brand offers products with excellent 3.65 Agree
features.
 I think this cell brand relate to the pleasant 3.68 Agree
experience.
I feel my cell brand products go with my 3.56 Agree
way of life style and personality.
Grand Mean 3.59 Agree

The above table revealed that the cell brand they are using relate to the pleasant

experience with a highest mean score of 3.68 with an adjectival description of ‘Agree”

followed by cell brand offers products with excellent features with a mean score of 3.65, and

cell brand products go with their way of life style and personality got a mean score of 3.56

with an adjectival description also of “Agree”.

On the other hand, cell phone brand increase desire to learn new thing and problem

solving got the lowest mean grade of 3.45 with an adjectival description of “uncertain”

according to the interview conducted by the researchers, respondents doesn’t affected on the

increase desire to learn new things and problem solving because according to them almost all

cell phone brand had already almost the same features offered and giving them pleasant

experience stated above as the highest mean scores

2.4 Customer Satisfaction

Table 8

Brand Loyalty Dimension as to Customer Satisfaction

Statements Mea Verbal Description

n
My cell phone is a good value for the money 3.69 Agree
I paid.
I would recommend my cell phone brand to 3.72 Agree
my friends.
 I am satisfied with the hardware 3.8 Agree
functionality of my cell phone.
I am satisfied with the operating 3.75 Agree
functionality or software system of my cell
phone.
Grand Mean 3.74 Agree

The table above revealed that brand loyalty dimension of customer satisfaction as

to I am satisfied with the hardware functionality of my cell phone got a highest mean score of

3.8 followed by I am satisfied with the operating functionality or software system of my cell

phone with a mean score of 3.75, I would recommend my cell phone brand to my friends

with a mean score of 3.72, and lastly my cell phone is a good value for the money I paid got a

mean score of 3.69.

According to the interview conducted by the researchers, the respondents agreed and

met their satisfaction as a user of their cell phone with a grand mean of 3.74 with an

adjectival description of ‘Agree”. In line with this, it reflects the maximum number of people

think that the brand loyalty as to customer satisfaction is agreed and felt at the moment they

buy the product.

2.5 Brand Switching Cost

Table 9

Brand Loyalty Dimension as to Brand Switching Cost

Statements Mea Verbal Description

 n
I am afraid that my choice of another cell 3.64 Agree
brand may reduce the esteem I have among
my friends.
I am afraid that if I change my cell phone 3.72 Agree
brand to another brand I will lose important
files that I have on it.
I do not have time to get the information and 3.67 Agree
fully evaluate a new cell brand.
It required effort to learn and understand 3.64 Agree
features and setting of a new cell phone, it
seems difficult.
Grand Mean 3.67 Agree

The table above revealed that the respondents of brand switching cost as to I am

afraid that if I change my cell phone brand to another brand I will lose important files that I

have on it got the highest mean score of 3.72, I do not have time to get the information and

fully evaluate a new cell brand got a mean score of 3.67 followed by it required effort to

learn and understand features and setting of a new cell phone, it seems difficult and I am

afraid that my choice of another cell brand may reduce the esteem I have among my friends

got the same mean score of 3.64 with and adjectival description of “Agree”.

According to the interview conducted by the researchers, that statement 18 and 19 are

stated that they are afraid that if they change the cell phone brand to another brand they will

lose important files that they have on it and they do not have time to get the information and

fully evaluate a new cell brand are the main reasons why they do not want to switch their cell

brand.
 2.6 Brand Loyalty

Table 10

Brand Loyalty Dimension as to Brand Loyalty

Statements Mea Verbal Description

n
If I could I would rather change to another 3.65 Agree
company’s mobile phone.
I would choose my current cell phone brand 3.91 Agree
even if the other brand has the same
functionality as my current cell phone.
I consider myself to be loyal to my cell 3.73 Agree
phone brand.
My cell brand is my first choice among cell 3.95 Agree
phone brands.
Grand Mean 3.81 Agree

This table shows that the above statements of the respondents of brand loyalty as

to cell brand is the first choice among cell phone brands got a highest mean score of 3.95

followed by they would choose the current cell phone brand even if the other brand has

the same functionality as the current cell phone got a mean score of 3.91.

On the other hand, consider their self to be loyal to their cell phone brand and if they

could, they would rather change to another company’s mobile phone got the lowest mean

grade with 3.73, and 3.65 respectively with an adjectival description of “Agree”.

According to the interview conducted, the statement number 21 revealed that they are
 still agree to change cell phone brand if they can, because some cell phone brand

according to them is not worth it due to features malfunction.

3. Description of correlational relationship between profile of the respondents

and brand loyalty.

3.1 Sex

Table 11

Profile of Respondents as to Sex

Sex Pearson p-value Interpretation

Correlation
Image 0.01 0.82 No Relationship
Quality 0.03 0.67 No Relationship
Experience 0.01 0.87 No Relationship
Customer 0.03 0.59 No Relationship
Satisfaction
Switching Cost -0.03 0.64 No Relationship
Loyalty 0.01 0.90 No Relationship

Table 11 shows that all dimensions of brand loyalty (namely: image, quality,

experience, customer satisfaction, switching cost, and loyalty) were no relationship to sex

profiling of the respondents having above 0.05 level (2-tailed) test. This denotes that

there is a no relationship between sex of the respondents and brand loyalty dimensions.

Among the dimensions of brand loyalty mentioned (namely: image, quality,

experience, customer satisfaction, switching cost, and loyalty), quality and customer
satisfaction have the highest value for Pearson correlation test in almost all dimensions of

brand loyalty.

3.2 Age

Table 12

Profile of Respondents as to Age

Age Pearson p-value Interpretation

Correlation
Image -0.06 0.31 No Relationship
Quality -0.08 0.21 No Relationship
Experience 0.08 0.17 No Relationship
Customer 0.01 0.90 No Relationship
Satisfaction
Switching Cost 0.01 0.82 No Relationship
Loyalty 0.01 0.92 No Relationship

Table 12 shows that all dimensions of brand loyalty (namely: image, quality,

experience, customer satisfaction switching cost, and loyalty) were no relationship to age

profiling of the respondents having above 0.05 level (2-tailed) test. This denotes that

there is a no relationship between age of the respondents and brand loyalty dimensions.

Among the dimensions of brand loyalty mentioned (namely: image, quality,

experience, customer satisfaction switching cost, and loyalty), brand experience have the

highest value for Pearson correlation test in almost all dimensions of brand loyalty.
 3.3 Allowance

Table 13

Profile of Respondents as to Allowance

Allowance Pearson p-value Interpretation

Correlation
Image 0.09 0.15 No Relationship
Quality 0.10 0.11 No Relationship
Experience 0.05 0.39 No Relationship
Customer 0.02 0.72 No Relationship
Satisfaction
Switching Cost 0.04 0.52 No Relationship
Loyalty 0.11 0.06 No Relationship

Table 13 shows that all dimensions of brand loyalty (namely: image, quality,

experience, customer satisfaction switching cost, and loyalty) were no relationship to

monthly allowance profiling of the respondents having above 0.05 level (2-tailed) test.

This denotes that there is a no relationship between age of the respondents and brand

loyalty dimensions.
 Among the dimensions of brand loyalty mentioned (namely: image, quality,

experience, customer satisfaction switching cost, and loyalty), brand loyalty have the

highest value for Pearson correlation test in almost all dimensions of brand loyalty.

3.4 Year Level

Table 14

Profile of Respondents as to Year Level

Year Level Pearson p-value Interpretation

Correlation
Image 0.09 0.17 No Relationship
Quality .252** 0.00 Significant
Experience -0.07 0.29 No Relationship
Customer 0.04 0.50 No Relationship
Satisfaction
Switching Cost -0.05 0.46 No Relationship
Loyalty 0.06 0.37 No Relationship

Table 14 shows that all dimensions of brand loyalty (namely: image, experience,

customer satisfaction switching cost, and loyalty) were no relationship to year level

profiling of the respondents having above 0.05 level (2-tailed) test. Only quality

dimension has significant relationship to year level profiling of the respondents.

 Among the dimensions of brand loyalty mentioned (namely: image, quality,

experience, customer satisfaction switching cost, and loyalty), brand quality have the

highest value for Pearson correlation test in almost all dimensions of brand loyalty.