| Literature DB >> 36124137 |
Md Rakibul Hafiz Khan Rakib1, Shah Alam Kabir Pramanik2, Md Al Amran1, Md Nurnobi Islam1, Md Omar Faruk Sarker3.
Abstract
Purchase intention has become a critical issue to the marketers of smartphones as the market has become very competitive, volatile, uncertain and dynamic during Covid-19 than ever before. For sustaining in the competitive market, every marketer is trying to upgrade its product appearance, product quality, service quality, attractive features, and latest version of software as a whole. This study has investigated the effects of product features, brand image, product price, and social influences on young customers' purchase intention of smartphone during this Covid-19 pandemic time. Survey was conducted using structured questionnaire by collecting data from 305 respondents by using convenience sampling technique. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) integrated with AMOS was employed for data analysis. Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) were used to test the reliability and validity of the collected data while hypotheses were tested by using Structural equation modeling (SEM). The findings of the study shows that, there is a significant effect of product features, brand image, and product price on purchase intention of a smartphone but social influences has no significant impact on young customers' purchase intention. The study results will help the smartphone marketers to redesign their pandemic and post pandemic segmenting, targeting, differentiation and positioning strategies. Practical and managerial implications along with the future research directions have been discussed at the end of this paper also.Entities:
Keywords: Bangladesh; Brand image; Covid-19; Product features; Product price; Purchase intention; Smartphone; Social influence
Year: 2022 PMID: 36124137 PMCID: PMC9476370 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10599
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Hypothesized model of young customers smartphone brands purchase intention. Source: Researchers' own construction (2021).
Demographic profile of the samples.
| Variables | Variable Categories | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 218 | 71.5 |
| Female | 87 | 28.5 | |
| Age | Less than 18 years | 1 | .3 |
| 18–25 years | 192 | 63.0 | |
| 26–30 years | 112 | 36.7 | |
| Profession Type | Student | 206 | 67.5 |
| Private Job | 52 | 17.0 | |
| Govt. Job | 3 | 1.0 | |
| Business | 41 | 13.4 | |
| Others | 3 | 1.0 | |
| Education | Below Secondary | 0 | 0 |
| Secondary | 4 | 1.3 | |
| Higher Secondary | 28 | 9.2 | |
| Graduation | 153 | 50.2 | |
| Post Graduation | 120 | 39.3 | |
| Monthly Income | Less than Tk. 10000 | 181 | 59.3 |
| 10001–20000 | 36 | 11.8 | |
| 20001–30000 | 21 | 6.9 | |
| More than Tk. 30000 | 67 | 22.0 |
Source: Field survey (2021)
Rotated component matrix with descriptive statistics.
| Attributes | Mean Score | Std. Deviation | Factor Loadings | Factor Mean | Reliability (Cronbach’ α) | Eigen Value | Total Variance Explained | Literature/Source Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I usually consult my friends when buying a Smartphone brand. | 3.65 | 1.119 | .919 | 3.56 | .835 | 2.17 | 12.90% | |
| I love to have the same Smartphone as my family members. | 3.70 | 1.078 | .899 | |||||
| My friends always persuade me to buy the same phone as theirs. | 3.34 | 1.367 | .771 | |||||
| I choose a Smartphone that has a superior camera. | 4.73 | .458 | .922 | 4.69 | .919 | 4.59 | 21.25% | |
| I consider the speedier internet accessibility of the Smartphone. | 4.69 | .466 | .898 | |||||
| I choose a Smartphone that has a mature app store. | 4.76 | .423 | .886 | |||||
| I consider the operating system of the Smartphone. | 4.69 | .466 | .803 | |||||
| I consider the design of Smartphone when I purchase it. | 4.58 | .506 | .773 | |||||
| I consider the brand image when buying a Smartphone. | 4.22 | .940 | .841 | 4.17 | .818 | 2.96 | 14.73% | |
| I purchase my favorite brand of Smartphone only. | 4.26 | .850 | .834 | |||||
| I purchase a brand from my past using experience. | 3.95 | 1.034 | .765 | |||||
| I consider the country of origin of the brand. | 4.23 | .889 | .708 | |||||
| I will use Smartphone regularly in the future. | 3.81 | .870 | .821 | 3.81 | .768 | 1.62 | 11.65% | |
| Purchase intention then make me to final purchase of the brand. | 3.50 | .843 | .818 | |||||
| I intend to start/continue using Smartphone in the future. | 4.12 | .789 | .769 | |||||
| I am willing to buy branded Smartphone even the price is higher. | 3.44 | .826 | .875 | 3.44 | .725 | 1.51 | 10.93% | |
| I prefer buying Smartphone during price deduction period only. | 3.77 | .833 | .799 | |||||
| I compare prices of other brands before I choose one. | 4.03 | .853 | .722 | |||||
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Figure 2Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) diagram. In the CFA analysis minimum Chi-square value was achieved 410.248 and degrees of freedom was 125 where probability level was 0.000. The CMIN/DF (Minimum Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom) was 3.282. The Goodness of Fit Indices were as follows Root Mean Squared Residual (RMR) = 0.040, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = .873, Average Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = .826, Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PGFI) = .638, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .087. All the values are consistent with the threshold value (Byrne, 2001).
Model validity measures.
| Constructs | Alpha Value | CR | AVE | MSV | MaxR(H) | Product Features | Brand Image | Social Influences | Purchas Intention | Product Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product Features | .919 | 0.916 | 0.691 | 0.102 | 0.967 | |||||
| Brand Image | .818 | 0.824 | 0.542 | 0.067 | 0.842 | 0.259∗∗∗ | ||||
| Social Influences | .835 | 0.858 | 0.672 | 0.059 | 0.897 | −0.119 | 0.243∗∗∗ | |||
| Purchase Intention | .768 | 0.777 | 0.547 | 0.102 | 0.877 | 0.320∗∗∗ | 0.238∗∗∗ | 0.027 | ||
| Product Price | .725 | 0.746 | 0.505 | 0.024 | 0.824 | −0.001 | -0.079 | −0.026 | 0.156∗ |
Note: CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = Maximum Shared Variance; MaxR (H) = Maximum Reliability; Significance of Correlations: †p < 0.100, ∗p < 0.050, ∗∗p < 0.010, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Figure 3Smartphone buying intention model.
Key goodness-of-fit indices.
| Type of fit | Key index | Acceptable level | In the measurement model | In the structured model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute Fit | Chi-Square (x2) | 2df ≤ x2 ≤ 3df | 410.248 | 329.872 |
| Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) | 0.05 ≤ RMSEA ≤.08 | .087 | 0.073 | |
| Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) | 0.90 ≤ GFI ≤0.95 | .873 | .900 | |
| Average Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) | 0.90 ≤ AGFI ≤0.95 | .826 | .864 | |
| Root Mean Squared Residual (RMR) | 0.05 ≤ RMR ≤.10 | 0.040 | 0.064 | |
| Comparative Fit | Normed Fit Index (NFI) | 0.90 ≤ NFI ≤0.95 | .865 | .892 |
| Relative Fit Index (RFI) | 0.90 ≤ RFI ≤0.95 | .835 | .868 | |
| Incremental Fit Index (IFI) | 0.90 ≤ IFI ≤0.95 | .902 | .930 | |
| Comparative Fit Index (CFI) | 0.90 ≤ CFI ≤0.95 | .901 | .929 | |
| Parsimonious Fit | Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PNFI) | PNFI >0.5 | .707 | .734 |
| Parsimonious Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) | PGFI >0.5 | .638 | .663 | |
| Parsimonious Fit Index (PCFI) | PCFI >0.5 | .736 | .765 |
Source: Adapted from Byrne (2001); Hu and Bentler (1999); Kelloway (1998); Kline (2005) and Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003).
Results of the hypotheses testing.
| Hypotheses | Dependent Variable | Independent Variable | Estimate | Std. Estimate | SE | C.R. Critical Ratio | P | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purchase Intention | Product Features | .348 | .275 | .083 | 4.182 | ∗∗∗ | Accepted | |
| Purchase Intention | Brand Image | .132 | .181 | .050 | 2.672 | .008 | Accepted | |
| Purchase Intention | Product Price | .132 | .171 | .052 | 2.562 | .010 | Accepted | |
| Purchase Intention | Social Influences | .007 | .013 | .033 | .215 | .830 | Rejected |
Note: H= Hypothesis; SE = Standard Error; CR = Critical Ratio; P = probability; ∗∗∗ = 0.000.