ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research © Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing association
Review Article
ISSN 2229 – 3795
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal
Boby Joseph. S.J 1 , Vishnu Khannal 2 1 Scholar, Department of Business Administration, Madurai Kamraj University Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal 2 Professor, Department of Management, Tribhuvan University and Councillor, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
[email protected]
ABSTRACT The main purpose of this study is to assesss the buying behaviour of Nepali teenagers towards mobile phones and to compare the behaviour between urban, semirural and rural teenagers of Nepal. The aspects of buying behaviour assessed were choice of brand, source of information, factors affecting buying decision, source of finances and the level of satisfaction with the product. The perception of the respondents about the significance of having a mobile phone was also determined. There is no published literature on the buying behaviour of Nepali youth towards mobile phones. This study serves as an exploratory study on factors affecting the buying behaviour of Nepali teenagers from different localities. Keywords: Nepal teenagers, buying behaviour, mobile phones, urban, rural. 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Nepal, with a per capita gross national product (GNP) of US$180 per annum, is one of 13 "least developed countries" in the ESCAP region.(ESCAP1991) Its predominantly agricultural economy employs more than 80 per cent of the economically active population. The total population of the country has increased from 21.6 million in 1994 (ESCAP, 1994) to 29.5 million in 2008 with 38.7% of the population falling in the 014 years category. The median age of total Nepal population is 20.3 years (CIA world factbook 2008). Nepal's population density has increased from 56 persons per sq. km in 1952 to more than 130 persons per sq. km in 1991(Ertur). About 80% of Nepal’s population live in rural areas and depend on subsistence farming for their livelihoods. This makes clear the importance of the rural market in the Nepal economic / business scenario. Urban marketing in Nepal has proven the most efficient, transparent and successful sector, whereas rural marketing is vice versa. Initially, the rural market was ignored by the private sector because of the low income level and the low literacy rate. However, when the growth in the urban market stagnates, rural markets are looked into. The rural consumer differs from the ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
35
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
urban consumer in terms of sociocultural context, attitudes and priorities. Hence the need to study the similarities and differences in consumer behaviour in the two settings. The rural consumer differs from the urban consumer in the following aspects: Economic situation, lifestyle, occupation and psychological factors like perception, cognition and motivation. The rural consumer maybe more influenced by traditions, customs and values. The low per capita income leads to low consumption. Rural market maybe underdeveloped and the rural consumer may not be aware of the latest trends and popular brands. Medium of communication of information could also vary between rural and urban consumers. This study was done to assess the differences and similarities between consumer buying behaviour among the urban, semirural and rural teenagers in Nepal. As mentioned earlier, a significant chunk of Nepal’s population is below 15 years. There is no pubished literature on buying behaviour of Nepali youth towards mobile phones. 1.2 Objectives of this study To assess the buying behaviour of Nepali teenagers as regards to mobile phone and to record similarities and differences if any between the buying behaviour and attitudes towards mobile phones in rural and urban and semirural teenagers. The aspects of buying behaviour assessed were the choice of brand, source of information about the brand, inspiration for getting mobile, financial source, the attribute of the product which was the most important while purchasing, who was behind the decision of getting mobile, the perception of importance of having a mobile phone, the frequency of use and the purpose of having a mobile and the level of satisfaction after purchase. 2. Material and Methods: 2.1 Study Design A random sample of 100 students each were chosen from an urban, semirural and rural locality in Nepal. The localities were chosen based on the definitions/ criteria discussed in the chapter on Introduction under the heading “Background of the study”. The schools were chosen based on convenience and judgement. 2.2 Sampling A random sample of 100 school children each from Kathmandu, Deonia and Maheshpur were taken. The childen were from grades 9 and 10 and in the age group considered reflective stage of John. The children in Kathmandu were from St. Xavier’s school, Jwalakhel and St. Mary’s school. The respondents in Deonia were from St. Xavier’s School, Deonia and children in Maheshpur were from Moran Memorial School and Government school, Maheshpur. All the samples included a near equal distribution of both genders. 2.3 Research Instrument The research instrument of the present study was a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was simple and easy to follow, and was prepared to apture the opinions and attitudes of the ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
36
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
teenagers towards purchase of mobile phones. After filling in the personal and demographic details like age, gender, locality and father’s and mother’s occupation, there were 11 questions regarding possession of mobile phone and factors affecting its purchase. 9 of the questions were closedended and had choices given and they had to tick the answer which was appropriate for each. 2 of the questions were rating scale modelled on Likert’s scale. 2.4 Data Collection The data was collected in the months of October and November 2010 using the questionnaire mentioned above. Designated teachers were instructed to supervise the distribution of the questionare. Children who needed help with understanding of the questionnaire/ translation (In Maheshpur) were helped by the teacher. The response rate of more than 98% was possible because the questionnaires were filled in the class under supervision and were returned to the teacher after completion. The respondents’ answers were codified and tabulated and entered in Microsoft excel sheet. The data obtained was analysed. Comparison of the differences and similarities from the rural, semirural and urban samples were noted. The findings were represented graphically or in tabular form wherever appropriate. 2.5 Review of literature Consumerbuying behaviour according to Kotler & Armstrong (2005) is defined as the buying behavior of consumers individuals and households who buy goods and services for personal consumption. Consumer can be described as person who acquires goods and services for self satisfaction. Personal consumers buy goods and services for his or her own needs. Whereas, organizational consumers buy products, equipments and services in order to run their organization (Kotler&Armstrong 2005). Peter and Olson state that consumer behaviour depends on interactions between people’s emotions, moods, affection and specific needs. (Peter JP & Olson J 2004) The study of consumer behaviour has emerged from focus on rational choice (microeconomics and classical decision theory) to irrational buying needs (motivational research) and logical flow models of bounded rationality. (Howard and Sheth 1969), based on information processing model (Bettman, 1979). The information process regards the consumer as a logical thinker who solves problems to make purchasing decision. The consumer mind is different from one individual to another according to the human psychology, demographical differences, age and gender. (Kotler&Armstrong2005)This varies from country to country and town to town and individual to individual. According to Kotler (1994), consumer behaviour is how people buy what they buy when they buy and why they buy. It is a subcategory of marketing that involves components of psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics. It attempts to study the buyer decision making process individually and in groups. It studies characteristics of individual consumers such as demographics, psychographics and behavioral variables in order to understand people’s needs. It also tries to assess the influence on the individual of group, viz, family, friends, reference group and society in general. In one family different members have different choices and opinions for a single commodity. Hence the consumer behaviour within a family is different (Kotler 1994)
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
37
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
Research on consumer buying behaviour of children started only in 1950s. The lack of much systematic research on this topic is due to the fact that marketers were initially reluctant to accept children as “market” (Stipp, 1988). However there has been considerable research in the past 34 decades. Children are consumers in their own right. Market research shows that children have considerable power as purchasers and influence buying decisions in the family. (North and Kotze) Blackwell et al state that adolescent influence on household spending varies by product user and by degree. They have a greater say in the purchase of products for their own use. Today’s children and adolescents live in a rapidly changing world with information and technology advancing at an explosive rate. This age group embraces new technology faster than all other age groups and are easily influenced by media and peer pressure. In fact, now marketers spend a lot of money and time trying to study and predict changing behaviour of youth. Blackwell et al (2001) are of opinion that children and adolescents learn their buying skills while shopping with parents. Five stages of shopping learning process through which a child/ adolescent progresses has been described by McNeal (1993). These include Stage 1 Observing Children’s initial interaction with the market place. Mothers usually take their infants to stores and shops and children make sensory contact with the shopping environment. McNeals’ (1993) study showed that the median age was two months, with a range of 133 months. John’s perceptual stage starts from 36 months to 7 years. Stage 2 Making Requests During this phase, (partly John’s perceptual stage) children make requests by pointing, gesturing or stating what they want, when they see an object of interest in the store. In the latter part of the phase, children they make requests even after reaching home. Stage 3 Making Selections When children start walking, (34 years of age, partly in John’s perceptual stage) children choose an article by taking it from the store shelves and experience their physical contact with the article. Stage 4 Assisted Purchases During this stage, children start spending money on their own, whatever they have received as gifts from parents and relatives. This correspomds to early part of John’s analytical stage. This contributes to the child’s understanding that money is the medium of exchange.
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
38
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
Stage 5 Making independent purchases The fifth and final step in the development of consumer behaviour in children is performing independent purchases without parental assistance. (John’s reflective stage) John (1999) has charted the process of consumer socialization as perceptual stage (37) years, analytical stage (711 years) and reflective stage (1116 years). In the reflective stage, children pay more attention to the social aspects of being a consumer. Socialization agents are the persons and organizations involved in the orientation and education of children as consumers. Some examples would be family members, friends, mass media, school, retailers. Family is the primary agent of socialization. Scott Ward’s article entitled consumer socialization published in 1974 asserted the need for studying children and their consumer socialization. This article inspired a new wave of studies on factors affecting consumer socialization in children. Acuff et al found in their study that teenagers do not consult their parents for buying soft drinks in 92% of cases. In 70% of clothes are purchased independently. However when computer soft ware is bought, parents are consulted in 80% of cases. This could be because parents must be providing the money for more expensive purchases. Sheth et al state that consumer socialization occurs when children learn to make preferences among brands, knowledge about product features and functioning of market place. There are no clear cut criteria for rural, semirural or urban locations and definition differs from country to country. In Nepal, the formal definition of urban area came out for the first time in 1961 census as "an area with a population cluster of not less than 5000 with an urban environment such as high school, college, judicial and administrative offices, bazar, communication facilities, mills factories etc," called Sahar. The nomenclature of the municipality (designated urban area) was changed with the `The Nagar Panchayat Act of 1962' which defined Town Panchayat (designated urban area) as being `as area having not less than 10,000 population'. And then later in 1976, in which the minimum population was fixed at 9000. The `Municipality Act of 1992' has provided more elaborate criteria ever than before to designate urban area; `as any area in the Kingdom of Nepal with minimum population of 20,000 and having electricity, road, drinking water and telecommunication facilities shall be declared as municipality by HMG with specifying the boundary areas of the municipality.' The same act, further stratified urban areas into three categories on the basis of "inhabitants, source of revenue collected and other environments". These categories are: Mahanagarpalika (Metropolitan area), Upamahanagarpalika (Submetropolitan area)and Nagaraplika (Municipality or Municipal area)(CBS 1995: 243). Based on the traditional urban city concept, the 1952 census recognized 10 towns as urban settlements, by 1991, it was 36 ( Ertur). Kathmandu, the capital metropolis falls definitely into the urban category and has been in the category since 1952. Deonia, less than 10kms from Changradhi, the major centre of Jhapa district, fall under the semirural category. This category which is at the overlap between rural and urban is characterized by proximity to urban centres ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
39
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
but is characterized by deep rural sociological moorings.(Erda). Maheshpur, a small village, 5 kms from Deonia with agriculture as the main occupation falls into the rural category. 3. Analysis and interpretation of results 3.1 Findings in Urban area ( Kathmandu) Mobile Holders’ Sample 100 children were interviewed. Age range was 1416 years with a median age of 15. 42 were females and 58 were males. Of the children interviewed, 72 had a mobile (72%), 28 did not have a mobile. Brands Most of the mobiles used were leading brands 44.44% used Nokia, 22.22% used Samsung and 13.89% used Sony erikson. Other brands used were apple iphone, blackberry, Colours, LG, Motorola, Spice and G5. Information Source Information about mobile they bought: 33.33% got information from TV advertisements, 12.5% from newspapers, 18.06% from friends, 11.1% from internet, 11.1% from mobile dealers, 11.1% from other sources. 2 of the respondents did not mention the source. Financial Help Money was provided by parents in 97.22% of cases, in 1case (1.39%) the money was given by friend and by relatives in 1 case (1.39%). The Decision The decision to get a mobile was a self decision in 56.94% ofcases, in 33.33%, the decision was inspired by parents, in 5.56%, the decision was inspired by friends and in 2.78%, the decision was inspired by the mobile dealer. In 1 case, the information was not provided by the respondent. Most Important Factor Deciding the Choice For 47.22%, quality was the important factor, for 37.5% it was style, for 4.17%, it was price and for 9.72% it was advertisement. 1.39% did not answer the question. Frequency of Use The frequency of use of mobile phones was reported as rarely by 6.94%, 19.45% said sometimes, 44.44% used it often and 27.78% used it very often. Perception about the Importance
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
40
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
33.33% said having a mobile is very important, 62.5% important and 2.78% thought it was not important. Uses of Mobile Phone 80.33% used mobiles for making calls. 8.33% for listening to music, and 6.95% had other purposes, including one person who used it for internet. 1 respondent did not answer the question. Satisfaction: 84.72% of mobile owners said they would recommend the brand for their friend. 3.2 Findings in Semirural area (Deonia) Mobile Holders’ Sample 100 children were interviewed. Age range was 1317 years with a median age of 15. 44 were females and 56 were males. Of the children interviewed, 42 had a mobile( 42%), 58 did not have a mobile. Brands Most of the mobiles used were leading brands 81% used Nokia, 2% used Samsung and 10% used Sony erikson. 7% used other brands. Information Source Information about mobile they bought: 24% got information from TV advertisements, 10% from newspapers, 40% from friends, 14% from internet, 7% from mobile dealers, 5% from other sources. Financial Help Money was provided by parents in 76%of cases, relatives in 17%. 5% made money by self employment. In 1 case (2%), money was from other sources. The Decision The decision to get a mobile was a self decision in 59.52%ofcases, the decision was inspired by parents in 14.29% of cases, in 26.19%, the decision was inspired by friends. Most Important Factor Deciding the Choice As regards the most important factor deciding the choice of mobiles, it was quality in 66.67%, style in 26.19% and price in 2.38%, and advertisement in 2.38% The Frequency of Use The frequency of mobile phones was reported as rarely by 14.28%, 23.81% said sometimes, 33.33% used it often and 28.58% used it very often. ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
41
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
Perception of Importance of Having a Mobile 16.67% said having a mobile is very important, 78.5% important and 2.38% thought it was not important.1 respondent did not answer the question. Purpose/ Use of Mobile Phones 69.05% used mobiles for making calls. 21.43% used it for listening to music, and 7.14% had other purposes. 1 person did not answer the question. Satisfaction: 76.19% of mobile owners said they would recommend the brand for their friend. 3.3 Findings in Rural Area ( Maheshpur) Mobile Holders’ Sample 100 children were interviewed. Age range was 1318 years with a median age of 15.46 years. 54 were females and 46 were males. Of the children interviewed, 14 had a mobile( 14%), 86 did not have a mobile. Brands Most of the mobiles used were leading brands 57.14% used Nokia, 7.14% used Samsung and 28.57% used Sony erikson. 7.14% used G5. Information Source Information about mobile they bought: 14.29% got information from TV advertisements, 7.14% from newspapers, 42.86% from friends and 35.71% from mobile dealers, Financial Help Money was provided by parents in 78.57%of cases, relatives in 14.29%, 7.14% made money by self employment. The Decision The decision to get a mobile was a self decision in 35.71%ofcases, in 35.71% of cases, the decision was inspired by parents, in 28.57%, the decision was inspired by friends. Most Important Factor Deciding the Choice As regards the most important factor deciding the choice of mobiles, it was quality in 92.86% and advertisement in 7.14% The Frequency of Use The frequency of mobile phones was reported as rarely by 14.28%, 64.29% said sometimes, 21.42% used it often. ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
42
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
Perception of Importance of Having a Mobile 35.71% said having a mobile is very important, 64.29% said it is important. Purpose/ Use of Mobile Phones 85.71% used mobiles for making calls. 7.14% used it for listening to music, and 7.14% had other purposes. 1 person did not answer the question. Satisfaction: 64.29% of mobile owners said they would recommend the brand for their friend. 3.4 Comparison: Similarities and differences between the three groups 72% of the respondents in Kathmandu owned a mobile phone when compared to 42% in Deonia and 14% in Maheshpur. (See figure 1) This could be partly explained by family socioeconomic status of the children interviewed. But this could reflect the more widespread use of mobile phones by urban teenagers when compared to rural teenagers. Among urban teenagers, a mobile phone is considered as a necessity rather than a luxury. 120 100 80 without mobile
60
Mobile owners
40 20 0 KTM DEO MAH
Figure 1: Percentage of mobile owners in three localities. Brands: Nokia was the commonest brand used in all the three cohorts. 44.44% in Kathmandu, 81% in Deonia and 57.14% in Maheshpur. Other brands commonly used in all three cohorts were Sony Eriksson and Samsung. There were more range of brands being used in Kathmandu. ( see table I). This could reflect the availability of the different brands in an urban setting. Nokia appears to have a wide coverage of market including rural and semirural areas of Nepal. Similar findings were observed in a study from Jamnagar district in India where 68% of mobile users in urban area and 71% in rural area owned a Nokia. (Erda 2008) Table 1: Brands of mobile phone used ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
43
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
Mobile brands Nokia Samsung Sony Eriksson G5 Apple iphone Blackberry Colours LG Motorola Spice Others Total
Urban No: 32 16 10 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 72
% 44.44 22.22 13.89 1.39 2.78 1.39 1.39 1.39 4.17 1.39 5.56 100
Respondents Semirural Rural No: % No: 34 81 8 1 2 1 4 10 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 42 100 14
% 57.14 7.14 28.59 7.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Total No: 74 18 18 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 7 128
% 57.81 14.05 14.05 1.56 1.56 0.78 0.78 0.78 5.47 0.78 5.47 100
Information source: Friends were the information source about the mobile brand in 40% of cases in Deonia and 42.86% in Maheshpur, whereas in Kathmandu, friends were the source only in 18.06%. Other sources like TV advertisements were the source of information in 33.33% in Kathmandu, 24% in Deonia and 14.29% in Maheshpur. Other sources of information are as listed in Table II. In rural and semirural settings, word of mouth among friends seem to be a more common way of getting information than television advertisements. In Maheshpur, after friends, the next common information source was mobile dealers (35.71%). Table 2: Source of information about mobile brands
Information source Television Newspaper/Magazine Friends Internet Mobile dealer Others Blank Total
Respondents Urban No: % 24 33.33 9 12.5 13 18.06 8 11.11 8 11.11 8 11.11 2 0 72 100
Semirural No: % 10 24 4 10 17 40 6 14 3 7 2 5 0 0 42 100
Rural No: % 2 14.29 1 7.14 6 42.86 0 0 5 35.71 0 0 0 0 14 100
Total No: 36 14 36 14 16 10 2 128
% 28.12 10.94 28.12 10.94 12.50 7.82 1.56 100
Financial help for mobiles were mostly from parents in all the three settings (See figure 2). But maximum% was observed in Kathmandu where financial help were from parents in 97.22% of those who had a mobile. In Deonia, it was76% and in Maheshpur, 78.57%. Other sources of income were self employment, relatives and friends.
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
44
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
80 70 60
others
50
friends
40
self
30
relatives parents
20 10 0 1
2
3
KTM DEO MAH
Figure 2: Source of Finance for purchase of mobile phones Decision to get a mobile phone was self inspired in 56.94% in Kathmandu versus 59.52% in Deonia and in 35.71% in Maheshpur. Friends inspired the decision in 26.19% in Deonia and 28.57% in Maheshpur, whereas in Kathmandu, friends were influential in the decision only in 5.56%. See Table 3. Table 3: Purchase decision Who inspired The decision Parents Self Friends Mobile dealer Blank Total
Respondents Urban No: % 24 33.33 41 56.94 4 5.56 2 2.78 1 1.39 72 100
Semirural No: % 6 14.29 25 59.52 11 26.19 0 0 0 0 42 100
Rural No: 5 5 4 0 0 14
% 35.71 35.71 28.57 0 0 100
Total No: 35 71 19 2 1 128
% 27.34 55.47 14.84 1.56 0.78 100
Quality was the most important factor in deciding the choice of brand in 66.67% of mobile owners in Deonia, 92.86% of mobile owners in Maheshur, but ony in 47.22% of mobile owners in Kathmandu. Style was the deciding factor for 37.5% of mobile owners in Kathmandu, 26.19% of mobile owners in Deonia. Not even one of the 14 teenagers in Maheshpur, considered style as the most important factor in their purchase decision. Advertisement was the most important factor in the purchase decision in 9.72% of those in Kathmandu, 2.38% in Deonia and 1 person in Maheshpur(7.14%) . See table 4. The frequency of use of mobile phones: In Kathmandu, 44.44% used often and 27.78% very often. In Deonia, 33.33% of respondents used often and 28.58% very often. In Maheshpur, 21.42% used it often and there was not a single respondent who used it very often.
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
45
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
Table 4: Most important deciding factor in choice of brand Deciding factor In choice Of brand Price Style Quality Advertisement Blank Total
Respondents Urban No: % 3 4.17 27 37.5 34 47.22 7 9.77 1 1.39 72 100
Semirual No: % 1 2.38 11 26.19 28 66.67 1 2.38 1 2.38 42 100
Rural No: 0 0 13 1 0 14
Total No: 4 38 75 9 2 128
% 0 0 92.86 7.14 0 100
% 3.13 29.69 58.59 7.03 1.56 100
Customer satisfaction: 76.19% in Deonia were satisified with the brand and was ready to recommend it for a friend. 84.72% in Kathmandu and 64.29% in Maheshpur said they would recommend the brand for their friend. (See figure 3) 80 70 60 50
no opinion
40
Not satisfied
30
Satisfied
20 10 0 KTM DEO MAH
Figure 3: Customer satisfaction Perception of importance: 33.33% in Kathmandu, 16.67%in Deonia and 35.71% in Maheshpur, thought it is very important to have a mobile. 62.5%in Kathmandu, 78.5%in Deonia and 64.29% of users in Maheshpur thought it important to have a mobile. 4. Conclusions 4.1 Summary 1.
The percentage of teenagers with mobile phone differed significantly between the urban, semirural and rural settings.
2.
Nokia was the most popular mobile phone among the Nepali teenagers, in all 3 localities, most so in semirural locality of Deonia. ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
46
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
3.
Urban teenagers had a wider range of brands when compared to their semirural and rural counterparts.
4.
The predominant source of information in semirural and rural settings were friends, whereas in urban settings, other sources of information like television and internet, were more common.
5.
The predominant financial source of mobile were from parents in all three groups, but maximum in the urban group.
6.
The most important factor in deciding the brand was quality in majority of the semirural and rural respondents, but a distinct percentage of the urban respondents quoted style as the most important deciding factor.
4.2 Significance of the study There is no published literature on consumer behavior of Nepali teenagers towards mobile phone. This study assesses the buying behavior of Nepali teenagers and compares and contrasts the same among teenagers of urban, semirural and rural teenagers. This was held in reality of today’s situation of marketing in Nepal. This study assesses youth behaviour. Youth are the country’s future, moreover they constitute a significant chunk of Nepal’s population. Since Nepal is moving toward the free and open markets such studies are significant. 4.3 Limitations of the Study Some of the specific limitations of this study are as follows: This study covers only selected Schools. This study is based on only four schools, two in the city and one in semiurban and one in the rural area. This study is based on sample data. We have only analyzed the teenagers and school children in a particular locality. The problems of nonavailability of required information regarding optimal portfolio analysis may limit the outcome of study. The study covers only short period, ie; OctoberNovember, 2010. Acknowledgments Authors thank the students, teachers and administrators of Moran memorial school, Maheshpur, St. Xavier’s school Deonia, St. Xavier’s school Jwalakhel and St. Mary’s school, Kathmandu. 5. References 1.
Acuff D (1997). What kids buy and why: the psychology of marketing to kids. New York. Free Press.
2.
Bettman JR (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. AddisonWesly Publishers, Reading, MA.
3.
Blackwell R, Miniard P & Engel J (2001). Consumer behaviour. 9th edition. New York Harcourt
4.
The CIA World Factbook, U.S. Department of State, Area Handbook of the US Library of Congress ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
47
A comparative study of buying behavior of mobile phones among rural, semirural and urban teenagers of Nepal Boby Joseph. S.J, Vishnu Khannal
5.
Engel J, Blackwell R &Miniard PW (1995). Consumer behaviour.8th edition, Florida. Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
6.
Erda C.V (2008). A comparative study on buying behaviour of rural and urban consumer on mobile phone in Jamnagar district. Marketing to rural consumers understanding and tapping the rural market potential. IIMK.
7.
Ertur O (1994). The Need for a National Urbanization Policy in Nepal.AsiaPacific Population Journal 9(3), pp 1936
8.
ESCAP (1991). Small Town and Rural Human Resources Development To Reduce Migration to Large Cities, Asian Population Studies Series, No. 110 (New York: United Nations).
9.
ESCAP (1994). 1994 ESCAP Population Data Sheet (Bangkok: United Nations ESCAP).
10. Howard JA, Sheth JN (1969). The theory of buyer behaviour. New York, John Wiley. 11. John DR(1999). Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at 25 years of research. Journal of consumer research. 26(3), pp 183237. 12. Kotler Philip (1994). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and control. 8th edition. NJ. Prentice Hall. p 173. 13. Kotler, Philip and Gary Armstrong (2005). Principles of Marketing. 11th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/PrenticeHall. 14. McNeal JU (1993). Born to shop. Children’s shopping patterns. American demographics 15(6), pp 3439. 15. North JE and Kotze T (2001). Journal of family ecology and consumer sciences. 29, pp 9199. 16. Sheth J, Mittal,B & Newman B(1999). Customer behavior: consumer behavior and beyond. New York. Dryden Press. 17. Stipp H (1988). Children as consumers. American demographics 10(2), pp 2633. 18. Ward S (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of consumer research, 1, pp 114. Biographical Notes Boby Joseph is a scholar in business administration at Madurai Kamraj University, Kathmandu centre. This study was done as part of the project submission for the course. Dr. Vishnu Khannal, PhD is Professor,Department of Management, Tribhuvan University and Councillor, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Kathmandu, Nepal. ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011
48