A study of Apple’s iPhone tracing the role of self-brand connection

among smartphone users

ABSTRACT

Through the rise of the smartphone phenomenon, consumers are ever looking towards the
brand that changed the game. Apple has introduced the concept of the smartphone and has
created an entire market with huge potential because of the ever increasing benefits of a new
phone every year.
When out shopping for a new smartphone, most consumers simply choose the brand with the
model that has the attributes that they require. However, the authors of this project have
observed a special scenario where something unique occurs – the consumers of Apple’s
iPhone have a special loyalty towards the brand, compared to that of other brands.
This research paper seeks to understand the relationship between the consumers of Apple’s
iPhone, and what is different to the consumers of other brands. With a research question of,
the role of a self-brand connection in relation to the brand and consumer, the authors aim to
grasp how the identity of the consumers relates to the identity of the brand and to understand
this relationship. This problem will be addressed with a questionnaire made by the authors
and certain hypotheses will be used to test if there is any evidence of the assumption that
iPhone consumers have a special relationship compared to those of other brands. It was found
that most of Apple’s consumers do in fact posses a self-brand connection and that this group
is also targetable by other brands if they follow two important determinants. A relatable
brand vision, and as few products as possible.
 CHAPTER-I
1.1 Overview of the study

Companies will always face the risk of decreased sales and/or not gaining any sales at all.
Different things can impact a brand of a company or its product and thus the sales. Therefore,
a company must be assertive on how their brand is portrayed to consumers. The brand of a
company is most of the time the most valued asset – the brand binds the values that the
company send its customers through its message and hence it tells the story of what the
company is and how it operates. There are certain factors that can limit the sales of a product
that the company cannot control - be it natural disasters, price increase of raw ingredients or
something else - however the goal is always to sell products. This is not always possible if the
price increases, because even though a consumer is aware of it and is a repeat purchaser of a
certain brand - he/she might not prefer it if the price increases (Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders,
and Wong, 1996, as cited in Pinson and Brosdahl, 2014). Therefore it is important to
distinguish between habitual purchasing and brand loyalty - a repeat purchasers choose a
brand because they know it, however if the price increases they will more than likely choose
a different brand. A brand loyal customer is a customer that chooses a particular brand, even
though the price might increase or is higher than that of a competing product - this is because
the customer likes it more - how this liking and brand loyalty is built is of particular interest.
An example of this is the use of shampoo. Most shampoo companies do not associate with a
certain lifestyle and simply portray most the same thing companies between. Therefore, if
some consumers are frequent user of Head & Shoulders shampoo, it is because they know the
brand but have no other reason to buy it other than that they like the product. However, if the
price of a bottle of the shampoo suddenly increases, it is most likely that the consumer will
suddenly choose to try other shampoos and buy this new brand’s product from then on. This
is an example of the difference between brand awareness and brand loyalty – within brand
awareness customers choose certain brand’s product because they know the quality of the
brand – within brand loyalty customers choose the same brand even though competing
companies might be superior to the price.

1.2 Company profile

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and
online services. It is considered one of the Big Four technology companies, alongside
Amazon, Google, and Microsoft.
The company's hardware products include the iPhone smartphone, the iPad tablet computer,
the Mac personal computer, the iPod portable media player, the Apple Watch smartwatch, the
Apple TV digital media player, the AirPods wireless earbuds and the HomePod smart
speaker. Apple's software includes the macOS, iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and tvOS operating
systems, the iTunes media player, the Safari web browser, the Shazam acoustic fingerprint
utility, and the iLife and iWork creativity and productivity suites, as well as professional
applications like Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and Xcode. Its online services include the iTunes
Store, the iOS App Store, Mac App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV+, iMessage, and iCloud.
Other services include Apple Store, Genius Bar, AppleCare, Apple Pay, Apple Pay Cash, and
Apple Card.
Apple was founded by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne in April 1976 to
develop and sell Wozniak's Apple I personal computer, though Wayne sold his share back
within 12 days. It was incorporated as Apple Computer, Inc., in January 1977, and sales of its
computers, including the Apple II, grew quickly. Within a few years, Jobs and Wozniak had
hired a staff of computer designers and had a production line. Apple went public in 1980 to
instant financial success. Over the next few years, Apple shipped new computers featuring
innovative graphical user interfaces, such as the original Macintosh in 1984, and Apple's
marketing advertisements for its products received widespread critical acclaim. However, the
high price of its products and limited application library caused problems, as did power
struggles between executives. In 1985, Wozniak departed Apple amicably and remained an
honorary employee,while Jobs and others resigned to found NeXT.
1.3 Need for the study:
Apple Inc. is a pioneer of product hype. With the advent of the Apple Keynote, Steve
jobs has promoted products in an extraordinary manner – by delivering the right amount of
information to make the consumers want more. When a new iPhone arrives in stores, people
line up in long queues, sometimes days in advance – however, the uniqueness of Apple’s
iPhone does not lie in the functions of the phone, which are just as good as the competitors.
Apple’s iPhone is unique in a sense that the competitors cannot achieve the same level of
hype coming from the consumers.
Companies spend a lot of resources on their products, branding strategies and execution
trying to outcompete their competitors and get brand loyal customers. Consumers evaluate
different brands, products and subconsciously or intentionally construct their self-identities
by using or endorsing branded products in their lifestyle. The purpose of this project is to
investigate the relationship between the brand and the customer.

1.4 Objectives of the study:

1.4.1 Primary objective:
To study the role of self -brand connection of apple’s iphone among smartphone users.
(for better and worse).
1.4.2 Secondary objective:
 To find the role of self- brand connection in the relationship between the brand and
the consumer.
 To find the brand loyality among smartphone users
 To find the difference in a level of brand love between iPhone users and other brand’s
users
 To analyse the role and affects of a self-brand connection between a consumer and a
particular brand – with Apple’s iPhone as the main brand of which others were
measured.
1.5 Scope of study:
The purpose of this research paper was to analyze the role and affects of a self-
brand connection between a consumer and a particular brand – with Apple’s iPhone as the
main brand of which others were measured. Furthermore it was sought to understand what
influences the self-congruity between the consumer and a brand – who a typical consumer
with an SBC is and why it is important to seek these SBC’s
Throughout this report it has been evident that the most of the consumers that
acquire an iPhone will most like keep the same brand, for when they need a new phone, as
opposed to most other brands. It was found that this is because of the unique brand
personality of Apple and their compelling quest of being the best. They are unique because
they have very few products and those that they have are made with the best materials and
quality – whereas other brands also have mid and low-tier phones.
1.6 limitations of the study
There are potential weak points of this project that the authors would like to mention. Some
of them are out the researchers’ reach of influence, whereas some could be improved if better
conditions of the study were present. One way or the other, it is important to mention all of
these factors that could be a limitation of this research and therefore endanger the reliability
of the results. When conducting the primary research, there are limitations in relation to the
geographical scope. The survey did not affect all countries, it was mostly oriented to
European countries because of knowledge of the environment and difficulty to spread the
questionnaire to more distant countries in a short period of time. Therefore, the respondents
do not represent the entire population. Time is the next limitation; the project had a limited
scope of time to be worked on. The limitation lies also in the type of survey; the
questionnaire is just one way how to come to results, there are also other types of research
that could be used, such as qualitative one using e.g. an interview. The analysis of the
collected data was conducted mostly by a help of a statistical test. There lies another
limitation; the particular tests chosen to study certain phenomenon may not reveal the same
results as a different test could. Another limitation is contained in the used case study.
Choosing a particular product such as Apple’s iPhone as a benchmark for the further analysis
may not represent the problem as a whole; it just shows an example of how a certain
phenomenon occurs and cannot be simply generalized.
 CHAPTER-II
LITERATRE REVIEW
In order to construct a literature review, the authors must establish what the necessary
grounds of the review are. The first part of the review is to make it clear what is going to be
reviewed. In this review, the authors will be writing about the general topic of brand love.
However, there exists a need to narrow the search of evidence. For this, the group has found
the following terms and keywords in order to gain the necessary knowledge: brand love,
brand loyalty, brand attachment, brand experience, brand preference, brand connection, self-
concept, self-congruity, self-brand connection. With these keywords in mind, we will
primarily be looking after published articles through AUB, Aalborg University’s book search
tool, Google and Google scholar. Our information searching was based on efficient skimming
of articles based on the appropriate keyword - the article headlines and subtext were read
through to view their contents based on this. If an article had words or meanings that was
deemed unnecessary to the project, they were rejected - however, articles that were relevant
but thought contrary to the views of the researcher, were included. The rejected articles
included the use of the keyword in an irrelevant context of this report. Based on the length of
this report it was thought necessary to have at least 2-4 articles on each keyword.

The authors of this report think that information seeking was well rounded and included most
of what was necessary to conduct a literature review. Through the portals named above, it
was possible to find many articles that would fit the review. It was thought necessary to
include a literature review in this report, because it will help the authors, as well as the
readers, with gaining an educated basis of knowledge on the topic at hand. In the next section
the review will be conducted where the relevant articles will be introduced within the
appropriate issue.

2.1 THEORITICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Brand loyalty is a phenomenon that many companies seek in order to keep customers as
repeat purchasers. However, the term is widely defined and has many researching what the
term is and what effects manage the loyalty. According to Romaniuk and Nenycz-Thiel
(2013), two main components materialize into loyalty. Buying frequency, which entitles to
buying the brand more frequently than others, and category requirements, which is the act of
buying a larger share of different categories than to that of the competitors. (Romaniuk and
Nenycz-Thiel, 2013). However, the act of loyalty alone does not create a sustainable brand,
but is an important proponent of the process. Schultz and Block (2015) talk of the brand
loyalty as a necessary part of creating repeat customers. They believe that organic growth
comes from a development of customers who advocate for the brand through friends,
relatives and people alike. This type of support is becoming increasingly important as a result
of social media. Though, there are different opinions on how this advocacy occurs, Schultz
and Block argue that sustainable brand growth is the product of brand loyalty and is a result
of loyal customers who show other people why, they enjoy the brand that they own. (Schultz
and Block, 2015). A brand with a strong identity is a brand that satisfies a customer’s
symbolic before and more than it satisfies the functional needs. Furthermore, a brand that has
a strong identity is a brand that has a stronger perception of value. (He, Li and Harris, 2012)

The term brand attachment has an accepted definition of, “having positive feelings of
affection, passion, and connection for a brand” (Yao, Chen and Xu, 2015, pp.3) according to
most scholars. Yao, Chen and Xu (2015) suggest that when a consumer is attached to a brand,
the connection becomes one, where the self and the brand become one with cognitive links
defined. They talk of this connection as an emotional self-brand connection and as a strong
indicator purchase intention, brand loyalty and purchase share. They argue that brand
personality is a determining factor in establishing brand attachment, where one’s image and /
or personality matches that of the brand. The more the two matches up, the stronger the
potential bond is. (Yao, Chen and Xu, 2015) Malär et al. (2011) argue that today’s biggest
issues in marketing is creating emotional brand attachment and says the way to obtain it is to
match the brand personality towards that of the consumer. However, the important question is
what consumer’s personality to match, the current or the ideal self. They conclude that the
actual self has the strongest impact when targeting.

Brand love is a referral towards a consumers love for brands and a branded product.
However, when established, brand love is a powerful indicator of the presence of brand
loyalty, word-of-mouth and resistance towards negative brand influence (Rauschnabel and
Ahuvia, 2014). Brand love is the product of many factors, where one of them is brand
attachment – furthermore brand love is greater for brands that are self-expressive and thus
help the consumer define their self-identity. (Loureiro, Ruediger & Demetris, 2012) Unal and
Aydın (2013) argue that for consumers to be emotionally loyal and emotionally attached to a
brand that is they believe the brand serves them best. They argue that many consumers shop
around every time they need a new product; however this is not what most companies want –
therefore brand love is important, since it drives attachment. They argue that the satisfaction
of product is not enough to illicit brand love – there must exist an emotional bond between
the consumer and the brand. They conclude that various factors result in the bond and these
are, variety seeking, social self, and brand image (Unal and Aydın, 2013). If a brand image is
positive and it reflects the current and ideal self of the consumer, a bond can arise, much like
a love affair.

Understanding a term “self-concept” and its role in consumer’s purchase behaviour is

essential before further immersion in the research problem of the project. It deals with how an
individual perceives himself/herself (Graeff, 1996). Rosenberg claims that the self-concept
signifies individual’s conception of himself/herself as if it was an object (as cited in Jamal
and Goode, 2001). Self-identity may be influenced by two main motives according to
Epstein; self-esteem is a motivation for developing further the individual’s self-concept, on
the contrary, self-consistency has an opposite effect in terms of behaving to keep the
perception of oneself as it is (as cited in Sirgy, 1982). Recent research shows a shift from a
traditional approach operating with only one individual’s self to assumptions working with
multiple selves, e.g. the good- vs. the bad-self, the hoped-for-self vs. the feared-self, and also
the ideal- and possible-self (Markus and Kunda, 1986). Parker (2009) summarizes different
authors’ (Aaker, 1999; Gould, 1991; Graeff, 1996; Sirgy, 1982, 1986; Sutherland et al., 2004)
approaches to the self from two points of view; either as the “real/actual-self”, referring to the
current state of self-perception, and the “ideal-self” which reflects the dreamt-of-self that the
individual considers as ideal. Many authors extend this conception by incorporating the
“social-self” which reflects the feelings of an individual about how others perceive him/her,
and “ideal social-self”, which portrays an individual’s desire of how he would like to be
perceived by others (Schiffman, 2012). Despite the then marketing beliefs assuming that
consumers do not feel the difference among brands when it comes to a certain product, a
research conducted by Mitchell (1986) showed the very opposite (Mitchell, 1986). Recently,
there is a rising trend of buying products not just for the utility value of the product itself, but
principally for the communication and expression element it provides in a form of a symbolic
meaning of the brand (Salzer Mörling, M., Salzermörling, M. and Strannegård, L., 2004).
According to Tucker (1957), “…consumers can be defined in terms of either the products
they acquire or use, or in terms of the meanings products have for them or their attitudes
towards products.” (Tucker, 1957, as cited in Sirgy, 1982). Consumers then build and
express their selves by choosing a certain brand (Schembri, S., Merrilees, B. and Kristiansen,
S., 2010). There are certain conditions that allow the consumer to express him/her
selfconcept through a brand choice. Mocanu (2013) distinguishes three attributes that the
product should have to allow the consumer to identify with the brand; first, it is the product’s
visibility while using it - that should ensure that it can be communicated further. Also, high
variability plays a role – the product should not be available to every consumer who would
use it the same way, as it loses its differentiation attribute. Personalizability should be also at
a high level as it implies certain stereotypical image that the consumer can identify with. As
stated in Escalas and Bettman (2005), having a product in ownership may satisfy consumers’
need of creating and expressing their identity, constructing selfconcept and highlighting their
differentiation from the others. This need of creating one’s self-identity is one of the
motivations and reasons for the purchase (Escallas and Bettman, 2005), whether the purchase
of a certain product represents the current self or tries to express the ideal self. Possession of
a product is in many cases likely a possession of a brand; consumers then use brand choices
to create and express their self-identities (Escallas and Bettman, 2005). Brand may represent
a symbol that can help to create the selfconcept of the consumer (Levy, 1959, as cited in
Escallas and Bettman, 2005). The choice of the brand or a product is not just a matter of a
consumer expressing the selfconcept to himself/herself (Jamal and Goode, 2001); it also
depends on how the image or personality of the brand and the consumer’s self-image or
personality correspond to each other (Escallas and Bettman, 2005; Jamal, and Goode, 2001).
Consumers are likely to prefer brands and product that resemble their self-concept (Jamal and
Goode, 2001). The need to express consumers’ own selves impels them to go and buy
products that match them (Sirgy, 1986. as cited in Kressmann et al., 2006). Product is not
considered just a physical object or service in the eyes of the consumer; its image is
influenced also by the level of the product’s price, way of promotion or how the product is
packaged (Sirgy, 1982). All these factors play a role in the self-concept matching process of
the consumer when assessing the product.
 Self-congruity has a big importance within consumer behaviour; it influences the
motivations for purchase and helps to build loyalty towards the brand (Kressmann et al.,
2006). Similarly, Hosany and Martin (2011) state that understanding the process of self-
image congruence plays a role in clarifying and forecasting of consumer behaviour. Self-
image congruence4 is a process of matching a consumers' self-concept and the user image of
a certain product, brand, store, etc. (Kressmann et al., 2006). One can understand the term
“user image” as a brand’s personality which portrays its typical customer; consumers then
trying to fit the brand-user image into their self-concept (whether it is their current-self, ideal-
self or any other kind) (Kressmann et al., 2006). The process of matching the brand image
with consumers’ self-concepts creates positive consumer reactions expecially in the case of
brands that are expressing their value (Aaker, 1997, and Sirgy, 1982, as cited in Rodriguez,
Bosnjak and Sirgy, 2011). The existence of self-congruity in the relationship between the
brand and the consumer generates competitive advantage and brand value, “evident in Apple
iPhone's strong market position relative to more functional Android smartphones that lack the
identity-expressive benefits Apple's young, cool brand personality offers” (Aaker, 1997,
Mantell, 2009 and Miles, 2010 as cited in Rodriguez, Bosnjak and Sirgy, 2011, pp.1).
Consumers have a need for self-respect and cohesive self, which drives the self-congruity;
this need is covered more, if the match of brand image and consumer's ideal self is stronger,
because it makes the consumers more self-confident as it hides inequalities between their
current and dreamt-of selves (Rosenberg, 1979, as cited in Kressmann et al., 2006). Not only
to get higher level of self-esteem, but also to feel consistent about actual self – that is also a
need that consumers try to cover. Consumers are convicted about “their own identities,
values, lifestyles, preferences, and habits” and they try to defend them, because any danger to
their beliefs would mean psychical problems (Kressmann et al., 2006, pp. 3).

Self-congruity is basically a process of linking the brand image with consumer’s self-concept
by creating a self-brand connection. The connection between a particular brand and a
consumer is created when a consumer uses the brand associations to develop or express
his/her self-identity (Escalas and Bettman, 2005). The self-brand connection describes how
much is a brand embedded in a consumer’s self-concept (Escalas and Bettman, 2003, as cited
in Escalas and Bettman, 2005). To make the self-brand connection possible, the consumers
have to perceive brand associations close to their selves (e.g. “user profile, personality traits,
reference groups, personal experience”) and have them also incorporated in any kind of their
self-concept (actual-self, ideal-self…); and be able to compare both the brand and self-image
and decide whether the match between them occurs (Chaplin and John, 2005). The
connection can be created with any brand, but the strength of the bond is what is important;
and the more specific user image the brand represents and communicates, the stronger the
connection can be, because it can be easily integrated to the self-concept (or the other way,
when the stereotypical image of a brand’s user is inconsistent with the self-image of a
consumer and leads to refusal of the brand) (Escalas and Bettman, 2005).

Measurements and constructs This subchapter aims to collect different empirical studies
from various authors in the similar problem area of this project to see what has been done so
far in investigation of self-brand connections. Dwivedi (2014) researched the self-brand
connection in a position of one of the key players regarding the consumer-brand relationship
in service-based brands. A quantitative study involving large sample of mobile and internet
service consumers in India revealed that positive post-purchase evaluations based on
consumer satisfaction and perceived value lead to implementing the brand into their self-
concepts, which implies establishing self-brand connection to the brand. This connection
ensures deeper relationship between the consumer and the brand, resulting not only in repeat
purchasing and brand loyalty, but also serving as a competitive advantage. Chaplin and John
(2005) dealt with self-concept and self-brand connections issues among children and
adolescents. The qualitative research included three studies showing that consumers start to
incorporate brands into their self-concept within their middle childhood and early
adolescence. The number of self-brand connections rises in connection with age. Different
authors examined the role of self-image congruity in consumerbrand relationship. Graeff
(1996) focused on a role of promotional message as a mediator of self-image congruity in
consumer’s brand evaluation. The sample consisting of 100 participants showed that if the
brand’s advertising uses promotional message that makes consumers think about their self-
images, these thoughts are then a good prediction tool of attitudes towards the brand. If the
advertising focuses more on product quality, consumers’ thoughts about self-image do not
influence the attitude. This result may become a great tool for the brand as it shows that
focusing on consumers’ self-images influences the attitude towards the brand. The study of
authors Jamal and Goode (2001) examined the impact of selfimage congruence on consumer
brand preference and satisfaction in jewelry industry in the UK. The results of this
quantitative research showed that self-image congruence can strongly predict brand
preferences and plays a certain role also in consumer satisfaction. The higher the congruity
was, the more the consumers preferred the brand and the more they were satisfied with the
brand. Similarly, Kressmann et al. (2006) focused on testing how different levels of self-
image congruence influence the brand loyalty. The quantitative survey involved 600 car
owners and showed a similar result as the research provided by Jamal and Goode (2001); that
is self-congruity serves as a prediction tool regarding the brand loyalty.
 CHAPTER-III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Methodology is the grounds of how knowledge is created and how it can be gained anew. It
helps with the understanding of the worldview that is the basis of this report and how the
research will be done. The first part will be used as a description of the worldview of the
authors of this report. The worldview is a portrayal how people think things word and how
people know that they work. This is called the Ultimate presumptions. It is therefore very
important to have a discussion of how the authors of this report, look at different things
within the aforementioned problem formulation. Therefore, this project will be looking into a
relatively looking, narrow area of marketing – more specifically, the self-brand connection.
Consequently, the discussion will look into what is understood within a brand, a self-concept
and a self-brand connection. Having a discussion of these critical aspects of this project is
imperative to the knowledge perception and thus knowledge creation. The discussion has
four parts; the first is the ontological discussion that is a philosophical discussion if both the
reader and the authors see reality in the same way. The second is the epistemological
discussion that is a discussion of the knowledge possessed by the authors and how it is know
that it is the truth. The third is the human nature & environment description, which shows the
connection between humans and their environment. The fourth and last is the methodology
that describes the process the authors has for this project. This discussion is done
chronologically, because each level has an impact on the next and thus the methodological
process of this project. (Burell and Morgan, 1979) This process of chronology can be seen in
the following diagram: Fig.3.1 – The subjective & objective dimension (Burell and Morgan,
1979, p. 3)

It can be seen in the above diagram how each level of ontology, epistemology, human &
nature and methodology moves onto, and determines the next. The choice of paradigm will
be shown later in this chapter. The paradigm is a classification within the social science and
the FISI classification will be used – later an in depth view of this classification and the
comparative classifications will be done.

3.1 Methodology
The methodology is the outline that positions the knowledge creation in this project into the
targeted direction and to do this, specific methods must be used. In the methodology, there
are the nomothetic and the idiographic approaches, respectively regarding the objective and
subjective dimensions. The nomothetic method is based on surveys and a systematic flow,
where the idiographic method views reality as ideas and symbols, which lays importance on
life and that the researcher gets a real view of a situation. (Kuada, 2010) This therefore
naturally leads the authors in the nomothetic direction, which is based on a rigid system of
analysis using surveys. In this project, it is necessary to gather information, regarding
consumer’s preference towards brands to research what specific mechanics make a consumer
loyal.

3.2 Research design

To further proceed with investigation of the problem formulation and conduct a related
research, it is necessary to lay the foundations of the intended research process. The work of
answering research questions consists of different stages of actions set in concrete sequence,
as one stage is dependent on another. The initial objective primarily aiming to investigate the
role of self-brand connection in brandcustomer relationship was determined and an
appropriate methodological approach was chosen to explain the background of the way of
carrying out the research and collecting necessary knowledge. When choosing a suitable
research design, a researcher should naturally consider the approach to the research problem.
If the research area has not been properly explored yet and a researcher wants to decide on
research priorities, exploratory design is being used (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014). Gaining
proper knowledge background enables to get a deep insight into the research area and helps
to identify the research gap that the authors then try to fill. In this project, the tool of
exploratory literature review is used. Reading relevant literature and its ensuing critical
review gives a detailed overview of research area and spots gaps and opportunities for further
research. Literature review is diffused by empirical research which shows what other
researchers investigated within the same field. Having a good grasp of the research area is the
alpha and omega of precisely defined problem statement and gives birth to hypotheses later.
With exploratory research as a basis, descriptive research is being conducted. This type of
research enables to describe and answer questions about a single variable or relationships
between different variables (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014). It helps to segment the market and
examines marketing performance of a brand (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014), in our case e.g. brand
loyalty. When deciding which type of research design to follow, descriptive and exploratory
research styles were chosen. Both styles use literature review, empirical studies and other
relevant data as a source of secondary data and a survey in a form of questionnaire as a
source of primary data in this project. Quantitative primary research is used as a tool from
exploratory and descriptive research view in this project to explain how self-brand connection
arises and how can brand influence this process within the smartphone industry.

3.3 Method of data collection

Relevant data are the basis of a successful project. Gathering proper insights into the research
problem and getting the right answers to determined hypotheses requires precisely designed
research plan. This chapter presents different types of data and explains chosen methods of
data collection. As for collecting the relevant data, researches may use secondary or primary
data. The basic explanation of the difference between these two types is that primary data are
collected by a researcher in relation to specific problem, whereas secondary data are the data
collected by other researches for other purposes, used to answer different problem than it was
examined for (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014). Because of easier and faster access to relevant
information, authors chose to use secondary data in the beginning of the research process.
These data are used in the literature review and on their basis, research gap was identified and
led to formulating the research problem. Secondary data can be used in a form of internal
(data used for other purposes, collected by the same researcher), external (data collected by
other researches), or mix of these two (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014). The authors of this project
used external secondary data, as they conducted no relevant previous research. Sarstedt and
Mooi (2014) state that secondary data represent fast, easy and often budget-friendlier way of
obtaining desired information that can cover larger sample sizes, however, lacking control
over the collection process gives limited picture regarding the data quality and opens a
possibility of hidden errors and out of date information. The authors decided to conduct
primary data research in the project to overcome some of the negative sides of using already
existing data and to accomplish more relevant and accurate results that only primary data can
provide. Sarstedt and Mooi (2014) assess primary data as usually more recent and able to
address specific problem due to control of the researcher over the data collection, however,
these data are much more difficult, time-demanding and often expensive to collect. Both
primary and secondary data can be either quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative data
represent values, whereas qualitative data can be expressed in more ways, such as words,
pictures or audio (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014). As the qualitative data are not showing a precise
result right after collection, it is very important to interpret them correctly (Sarstedt and
Mooi, 2014). Primary data research may be conducted either by observing, e.g. behaviour of
the consumers, or direct asking e.g. by interviews, surveys, focus groups etc., alternatively by
combining both approaches (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014). As observations cannot provide
answers to many questions and are basically just a tool to see what is happening rather than
why is it happening (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014), the authors decided to use the direct-asking
form of collecting primary data which better suits the needs of the research. A questionnaire
is suitable because of the objective nature of it – there does not exist the influential nature of
an interviewer. A questionnaire is a practical approach towards seeking knowledge – it is
possible to acquire larger amounts of information compared to a normal interview. The
results are easy to compare and quantify – they can be used to propose a connection towards
a particular trait.
3.4 The process of cleaning and coding the data
 Once the primary data research is finished, the next step in the whole research process is to
conduct a proper analysis. Before a researcher can analyze the data, it is necessary to take
some preparatory actions to adjust the raw dataset so it is possible to analyze them in a
relevant statistical software afterwards. The first step is to clean the data from possible errors;
in this project, the authors can deal with missing answers in the questionnaire, outliers or
series of answers that do not seem to be very trustworthy (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014). In
relation to missing data, there can be the whole questionnaire missing because a respondent
only opened it; or one or more questions that are left unanswered so the questionnaire is
considered partly answered. The authors decided to exclude these types of missing data from
the data analysis so only completely answered questionnaires would remain. Outliers is
another type of error that can appear in the collected data. It is considered as a value that is
completely different from all the other’s respondents’ answers in the same question or a very
rare combination of variables, which can be an error and influence the whole survey (Sarstedt
and Mooi, 2014). There can be answers that do not seem to look very credible and should not
remain for further analysis. Sarstedt and Mooi (2014) describe them as “suspicious response
patterns” which cover answers such as only 5s on 5-point scale or when the respondent
answers inconsistently - e.g. he grades his/her smartphone brand both as the best and the
worst in two similar questions. After taking all possible errors into consideration, the number
of respondents in the cleaned dataset stabilized at the initial number of 320. The overview of
the numbers of collected questionnaires can be seen in the following graph; from the total
number of 951 collected answers, 45% of questionnaires was only opened, 21% was partially
completed and 34% was completely filled in.

Fig. 3.4: Overview of collected responses

To correctly and easier conduct certain types of analyses, it is necessary to transform some
types of data. In this project’s questionnaire, there is a lot of questions that are answered by
Likert scale, which means that the answer consists of a word- or number-based scale
expressing an intensity of the respondent’s opinion on something (e.g. a statement “I like this
brand” can be answered by using the number scale from
1, which means “very much disagree” to 5, meaning very much agree”). Sarstedt and Mooi
(2014) term this type of question as construct, which denotes a series of questions asking
similar items to get a unified answers on certain phenomenon, e.g. brand loyalty; and to be
able to measure the strength of respondent's loyalty toward the brand, the average of these
statements has to be counted.

As the last step of data preparation, a codebook was created. Codebook simplifies the whole
data analysis process because it transforms all values to numbers and therefore it is easy to
work with in a statistical software. The codebook can be found in an appendix.

3.5 Reliability and validity

Every researcher should consider reliability and validity questions before conducting a
market research. It is very important to pay attention to this issue as it shows if the measured
items truly represent what the researcher originally intended to measure and avoid
measurement errors.

3.5.1Validity
In order to find out whether the desired measurement is actually valid, it is necessary to take
certain issues into consideration. The research validity of a questionnaire can be divided into
different levels: one for the questionnaire and one for the surveyed subset. For the
questionnaire, the validity can be assessed through how it is viewed by the people being
surveyed. Is it obvious what the meaning of the questionnaire is? If so, the surveyed might be
influenced in the direction wanted by the authors, which is not ideal. Therefore the
questionnaire is considered valid because it has been developed with enough vagueness that
the research purpose is not evident while still managing to be precise enough to conduct
research on. Regarding the subset used, it is also seen as valid because of the nature of the
research – because the research purpose is to look at a consumer’s ability to connect to a
brand.

3.5.2 Reliability
There are three issues that should be taken into consideration to assess the reliability of a
measure; its stability, internal consistency reliability and inter-rater reliability (Sarstedt and
Mooi, 2014).
Stability of the measurement is necessary to see whether or not the answers of the
respondents would be the same if the same questions were asked at a later point in time. For
this questionnaire, the assumption is that it will be the same. The authors of the report have
shared the questionnaire through Facebook, and shared through on different groups – if the
assumption is that it will be shared the same place, it will most likely give the same results.
The reliability of the answers is also seen as good, because of the aforementioned validity of
the questionnaire – because it has been made vague enough to not give hints of the purpose,
but enough to conduct research on. Therefore the reliability is seen as sufficient even though
there is certain probability that because self-brand connections do not exist forever, the
answers would be different over longer period of time.
By internal consistency reliability, it is called a set of a few or more questions that are trying
to measure the same thing; in our questionnaire, it is the whole middle part, evaluating e.g.
brand trust, brand loyalty, self-brand connection etc. by asking on assessment of statements
such as “This brand is the best on the market.” or “I feel I contribute to a better future with
this brand.”. This type of reliability is most commonly assessed by counting Cronbach’s
Alpha that has the ability to reveal if these questions are consistent. In this project, there are
six concepts of which we have computed the reliability with the help of Cronbach’s Alpha.
The results for each concept can be seen in the following table and show that every single
measured concept consists of highly related statements and the high scores of Cronbach’s
Alpha indicate that this data is very reliable.
Tab. 3.5.2: Test of reliability
Concept Cronbach’s Alpha N of items
Self-identity ,925 8
Brand love ,892 5
Brand attachement ,890 3
Brand commitment ,835 3
Brand trust ,859 2
Brand loyalty ,888 5

Inter-rater reliability is important to keep because it may be affected by the researches

themselves, if any inconsistencies among their views on the questionnaire, e.g. in wording.
Therefore, the questionnaire was handled to a few different people to test the concept and
find out if they understand the questions in the same way as the researchers.
For the validity and reliability of the subset used, it is also important to ensure that it is
representative of the population and that the data can be used to draw a conclusion from.

3.6 Sampling
Sampling is the process of including a subset of a given population. Therefore, when
conducting primary research, it is almost always done by surveying a subset of a population.
It is therefore important to understand the difference between a subset and a population. A
population is the whole part of what is to be researched – whereas the subset is a part of the
population that will be surveyed – however both parts have a common variable. This can be
illustrated like this: the population can be, people who own a bicycle – but the subset cannot
be the whole population, simply because too many people in the population exist – therefore
the subset are few people that have the same variable in common (bicycle in this example),
however the subset is people surveyed from different parts of where the population exists.
This means that for the whole population, only a part (the subset) is surveyed, in order to
draw conclusions for the whole population.
For this project, however, the population needs to be defined, as well as the subset that is to
be surveyed. The population is people who own a smartphone – this is, however, a very big
population, so in order to give a generalized view on the population, a subset must be
surveyed – which then can be used to draw a conclusion from

CHAPTER-IV
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

By using various techniques and tools to analyze the collected data from the questionnaire,
the authors aim to answer the problem formulation and its subquestions. The emphasis is put
on description of demographic factors, finding out the common traits of smartphone users and
analyzing various components of brand love within demographic factors and users of
different brands using statistical tests.

4.1 Demographics
With a total of 320 respondents, ranging across different countries, ages and occupation, it
is possible to describe the size of each group, in order to use this data on a comparatively
basis.
The first group to describe is the gender makeup. Of all respondents, 81 % were female
with a total of 259 and the rest, 61 were males. It is not possible to give a definitive
answer as to why the female group is substantially larger than the male, whoever it is
possible to speculate why. The authors of the report believe that women are more prone to
helping other people and are therefore more willing to use their time on a questionnaire.
Tab. 4.1.1: Current smartphone brand vs. Gender Crosstabulation

Count

Gender total
Female Male
1.What is your current smartphone Acer 3 0 3
ebrandChooseone . HTC 4 2 6

Huawei 28 4 32
iPhone 100 25 125

LG 8 3 11

Microsoft / Nokia 11 5 16

Other 40 6 46

Samsung 52 12 64

Sony 13 4 17
259 61 320
total

The next group is the age brackets. 14 % (45) of the total were part of the 18 and under
group. 69 % (221) of the respondents were part of the 19-26 bracket. 11 % (36) were part
of the 27-33 bracket. 2 % (7) were part of the 34-44 bracket. 3 % (11) were part of the 45-
64 bracket. None were part of the last age bracket of 65 and up. Again, it is possible to see
that one group is overrepresented and a possible answer is that the 19-26 age bracket is
simply the biggest user of social media, which was the only source of respondents.
Tab. 4.1.2: Current smartphone brand vs. Age Crosstabulation

Count

What is your age

19 - 27 - 34 - 45 -
18 and
under 26 33 44 64 Total
1.What is your current smartphone brand Chooseone
0 2 0 1 0 3
Acer
0 4 1 1 0 6
HTC
9 20 3 0 0 32
Huawei
18 82 16 3 6 125
iPhone
0 9 2 0 0 11
LG
0 16 0 0 0 16
Microsoft /
5 36 4 1 0 46
Nokia
12 40 8 1 3 64
Other
1 12 2 0 2 17
Samsung
Sony
Total 45 221 36 7 11 320

The second last group is the civil status. 43 % (139) of the respondents were single. 51 %
(163) of the total were in a relationship. The last 6 % (18) were married. The last
demographic group is the occupation. 5 % (17) were self-employed. 25 % (81) were
employed through normal work. 67 % (215) were students. 1 % (4) was unemployed. 1 %
(3) was retired.
Tab. 4.1.3: Current smartphone brand vs. Occupation Crosstabulation

Count

Occupation

Self- Unempl
oy
Retire employ Tot
Employ ed d ed Student ed al
1.What is your current smartphonebrand Acer 1 0 1 1 0 3
Chooseone.
HTC 3 0 0 3 0 6

Huawei 5 0 1 26 0 32

iPhone 40 1 7 76 1 125

LG 1 0 0 10 0 11
Microsoft
/
Nokia 3 0 2 11 0 16

Other 9 1 3 30 3 46
Samsung
14 1 3 46 0 64
Sony 5 0 0 12 0 17
Total 81 3 17 215 4 320

However, since the topic of interest in this report, is consumer’s attitude towards different
brands, it is also important to depict what brands the majority groups belong to.
The biggest brands, in order, are: iPhone (39%), Samsung (20 %), Huawei (10 %),
Microsoft & Sony (5 % each), LG (3 %), HTC (2 %), Acer (1 %) – furthermore there is a
significant group with many unknown brands and cheap Chinese models with 14 %.
The biggest group of iPhone with 39 % is composed of 125 people with 100 of them
being females – this is an 80 % share of the group. The age brackets of the same group
consists of 18 (14,4 %) in the 18 and under category, 82 (62,6 %) in the 19 to 26 category,
16 (12,8 %) in the 27-33 category, 3 (2,4 %) in the 34-44 category and 6 (4,8 %) in the
45-65 category. Again, it is evident which group is the most dominant, with the bulk of
the respondents. Regarding the occupation, 40 (32 %) of the total 125 were employed, 1
(0,8 %) was retired, 7 (5,6 %) were self-employed, 76 (60,8 %) were students and 1 (0,8
%) was unemployed. The last group, with regards to marital status were divided between,
56 (44,8 %) were in a relationship, 10 (8 %) and lastly 59 (47,2 %) were single. With this
division, there is no clear dominant group with an almost equal divide between
relationship and single.
From this short display of the demographics it is obvious to show that the most frequent
consumers within out questionnaire is a female within the age of 19 to 26, is a student and
is just as likely to be in a relationship as well as to be single. These figures will make it
possible to segment the different groups in order to define a relationship, if present.

4.2 Typology of smartphone users extracted from factor analysis

This subchapter is focused on analyzing the middle section of the questionnaire.
Respondents were supposed to rate various statements using a Likert scale according to
their degree of agreement. It would be interesting to see if any patterns of behavior
occurred while answering these questions; it is however difficult to analyze the statements
individually. Therefore, a factor analysis became a suitable option to discover any traits of
users that could tell us more about possible types of smartphone users.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

This type of analysis is not used to test hypotheses; it is rather a descriptive tool in
statistics. Factor analysis is used when there is a large amount of variables that are
difficult to analyze. It helps to reduce this amount by grouping various variables with
strong inter-correlations together and by this to create new variables (factors;
components). These new factors therefore contain variables that explain certain common
trait of respondents. As the variables have values measured on a scale, they are a suitable
type of variable for this analysis. The factor analysis was conducted in SPSS software as a
principal component analysis.
To get a proper and correct output from factor analysis, it is a necessity to meet some
conditions before going further. First, the data have to be measured on a at least 5-point
scale while having each step between two points on the scale in the same size. Secondly,
the size of the sample matters – where 320 respondents seem to be a satisfactory number
as it is at least ten times greater than the number of variables used for the analysis. Last,
but not least, there has to be an independence of observations, which means that the data
contain only observations that do not influence each other.
All these three conditions were met in this project. The last assumption is that variables
have to be correlated enough. (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014).
Before starting the analysis itself, we need to test the last assumption of high correlation
among variables. This is done by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
(see next table). The result of this test should lead to rejecting the null hypothesis that the
correlation matrix is a diagonal matrix in the population (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014); which
can be confirmed because the significance level is ,000. The KMO measure of sampling
adequacy is ,959 which means that adequacy of the correlations is very high and the
factor analysis can be conducted.

Tab. 4.1.4: KMO and Bartlett's Test

,
9
5
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 9
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 7094,211

df 325

Sig. ,000

After starting the analysis in SPSS, three components in total were extracted as they fulfil
the condition of Eigenvalue greater than 1 (chosen before running the analysis as
commonly used value). In the next table, we can see Eigenvalues of each factor and its
percentage of variance.

Tab. 4.1.5: Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
% of Cumulativ % of Cumulativ % of Cumulativ
e e e
Componen Varianc Varianc Tot Varianc
t Total e % Total e % al e %
14,0 54, 14,07 7,65
1 77 141 54,141 7 54,141 54,141 1 29,428

2, 9,
50 61
2,50 7,06
0 6 29,428
0 2
3,
2 63,758 9,616 63,758 27,162 56,590
1,0 93 1,02 2,88
3 22 2 67,689 2 3,932 67,689 6 11,099 67,689

To choose the right number of factors, we also need to look at the scree plot in the next
graph. According to the curve in the scree plot, it is clear that only two factors (number 1
and 2) differ significantly from the others and are therefore able to provide with solid
information.
Fig.4.1.5 : Scree Plot

To finally decide which components should be extracted from the analysis, an examination of
factor loadings follows. Following table displays variables and their loadings. Any loading
greater than 0,5 is considered as significant and shows the strength of the relationship
between the variable and the component. The loadings are arranged according to the strength
of correlations in the rotated component matrix and therefore we can see which variables are
contained in which component, which simplifies the interpretation of the output. The final
decision was to choose Component 1 and Component 2 as the result of the factor analysis.
Tab. 4.1.6: Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
,
79
1.This brand is trustworthy
9
2..I want to continue my relationship with this brand ,
3.This brand is reliable and dependable 77
9
,
77
6
4.Next time I will definitely buy the same brand again , ,361
77
5.If I have a problem with my smartphone eg.stolen Iwill ,403
1
6.I recommend my brand to other people ,
76
9
,
76
7
7.If I got any smartphone for free .I would choose my current , ,473
67 ,356
8.This is awond ,504
1
9.best user experience , ,331
10.I have a lot of faith in the future of this brand 66 ,406
5
11.best on the market ,
65
8
,
64
6
,
63
1
12.The brand suits me well , ,391 ,365
57 ,
13.This brand symbolizes what kind of person I would like to be ,366
5 7
14.This brand reflects my personality 7 ,325
15.This brand makes me feel like Impart of something 3

16.This brand makes me feel unique ,

7
17.I can identify my self with the brand 6
18.I feel I contribute to a better future with this brand 8
,
19.This brand contributes to my image ,
34
7
20.This brand has a positive impact on what others think of me 8
6
21.Iam passionate 3
22.This very happy ,387
,
23.I talk to other people about my brand 7 ,345
4
24.I feel like don’t have what I want if I don’t have this , 1
25.No other brand can take the place of this brand 44
,
7
7
, 2
57 5 ,719
5
 , , ,602
44 7
9 2
5
,
,
7
42
0
4
6
,
6
8
8
,
6
6
4
,
6
2
0
,
5
1
7
,450
,399
26.Im very attached to this brand , ,492 ,580
39
8

Component 1 is made of 11 variables and was named “Faithful user“. For this type of
smartphone consumer, statements related to brand trust and loyalty are important. These
consumers value if their brand gives them a trustworthy impression. They appreciate
reliability and dependability of their brand, they are satisfied with the user experience and
they think that the brand is wonderful. Therefore they are loyal to it and because they
believe that the brand will not be of worse quality in the future, they want to purchase
products from this brand again.
The component contains following statements arranged according to their significance:
1. This brand is trustworthy.

2. I want to continue my relationship with this brand.

3. This brand is reliable and dependable.

4. Next time I will definitely buy the same brand again.

5. If I have a problem with my smartphone (eg. stolen), I will definitely buy

the same brand again.
 6. If I got any smartphone for free, I would choose my current brand.

7. This is a wonderful brand.

8. My brand has the best user experience.

9. I have a lot of faith in the future of this brand.

10. This brand is the best on the market.

11. This brand suits me well.

Component 2 also consists of 11 variables and it was given a label “Selfcongruent user“.
Consumers that have traits from the second factor are highly focused on their image. They
like to express their self-identity by using their brand, because it reflects their personality
and contributes to their image. They identify with the brand, it makes them feel unique
and like a part of certain group.
This factor consists of following statements, arranged from the most to the least
significant one:
1. This brand symbolizes what kind of person I would like to be.

2. This brand reflects my personality.

3. This brand makes me feel like I’m a part of something.

4. This brand makes me feel unique.

5. I can identify myself with the brand.

6. I feel I contribute to a better future with this brand.

7. This brand contributes to my image.

8. This brand has a positive impact on what others think of me.

9. I am passionate with this brand.

10. This brand makes me very happy.

11. I talk to other people about my brand.

4.3 Generating and testing hypotheses

With the help of statistical tests, the researchers will try to approach the research problem
by answering two main research questions focusing on demographics and iPhone users.
Each of the questions consists of various number of sub-hypotheses that are tested by
usage of different statistical tests with results presented in the end.

4.3.1 Research question (1): Is there a difference in a level of brand love between
iPhone users and other brands’ users?

HA: iPhone users are more willing to buy the same brand again.
The first thing to measure, if iPhone customers are more willing to buy a new smartphone
of the same brand, is to make a cross tabulation of their current smartphone brand and
their willingness to buy the same brand again, on the Likert scale. Furthermore, to
validate the results of the cross tabulation the means of the answers, regarding self-
identity, will be calculated. For the first test, the cross tabulation, a table was drawn up
with, the consumers’ willingness to buy the same smartphone again, on the row, and the
consumers’ current phone on the column.

Tab. 4.1.7: Current smartphone brand vs. I will buy the same brand again Crosstabulation
Next time I will definitely buy the same brand again Total
1 2 3 4 5

1.What is your current

Smartphone brand
Chooseone .

Acer 0 0 1(33%) 1(33%) 1(33%) 3

HTC 1(16,6%) 1(16,6%) 2(33%) 2(33%) 0 6
Huawei 2(6,25%) 5(15,6%) 13(40,6%) 6(18,7%) 6(18,7%) 32
3(2,4%) 12(9,6%) 17(13,6%) 26(20,8%) 67(53,6%) 125
iPhone
 LG 3(27,3%) 2(18,2%) 4(36,6%) 2(18,2%) 0 11
Microsoft 0 2(12,5%) 7(43,7%) 6(37,5%) 1(6,2%) 16
/ Nokia
Other 8 3(6,5%) 17(37%) 10(21,7%) 8(18%) 46
Samsun 4(6,2%) 12(18,7%) 27(42,1%) 12(18,7%) 9(14%) 64
g
Sony 1(5,8%) 2(11,7%) 6(35,3%) 4(23,5%) 4(23,5%) 17
Total 22 39 94 69 96 320

On the left side, the table shows the different brands the consumers currently possess, and
the consumers’ willingness, on a 1-5 points Likert scale, to buy the same brand again –
the table shows how many consumers there are in each level of the scale. After each
number, a parenthesis with the corresponding percentage of the total, is shown.
If we look at the brands in a chronological order, and start with Acer, we can see that with
the only three respondents it is not quite possible to say anything definitive; however
there is evidence of these respondents being positive towards their current brand. For the
next brand, HTC, there are also very few respondents, but here a different picture is
shown. Most are not or indifferently willing to buy the same brand again, however 33%
are most likely going to. Huawei also shows a tendency towards wanting the same brand
again although with most of the consumers being indifferent towards not wanting to buy
it or buy it. iPhone consumers are the more unique ones with only 12 % not wanting to
buy the same brand again. A clear picture is shown with more than 70 % of the
respondents wanting to buy the same brand again, and only 13 % not sure whether to buy
it again or another brand. LG customers are on the other side of the spectrum with more
than 45 % not wanting to buy the same brand again, 36 % being indifferent towards it and
only 18% most likely to buy it again. Microsoft / Nokia’s customers are on the fence of
being indifferent with 43 %, 12 % not wanting to buy it and more than 43 % say that they
want to buy it again – however with the huge group being indifferent, no clear picture is
shown. Samsung also has a big group of consumers being indifferent towards buying or
not buying it with more than 42 %. Almost 25 % say they are not willing to buy the same
brand again, but more than 33 % say they are willing to buy it again, with a little skew
towards most likely. Sony also has a big group not sure whether to buy or not to of 35 %,
with 17 % not wanting to buy it again and 47 % say they want to buy the same brand.
The cross tabulation gives a clear view of which consumers are more willing to buy the
same brand again, with a lead from iPhone with more than 70 % wanting the same brand
as their current one. However, to be able to conclude correctly from these results, it is
necessary to test if there is any statistically significant difference within the data.
For this, one-way ANOVA will be used. The null hypothesis was determined:
H0: There is no difference of iPhone and other brands’ users of smartphones in
willingness to buy the same brand again.
H1: There is a significant difference of iPhone and other brands’ users of smartphones in
willingness to buy the same brand again.
As some of the groups intended to be tested were of too small sample size, they were
grouped together under the value “Other” as in the previous cases. The Shapiro-Wilk test
of normality has to be done first. The result showed that each group showed significance
under ,05 except Sony with sig. = ,102. We decided to proceed further as ANOVA is
robust to some violations of normal distributions if the sample size is big enough (at least
around 20 in each group).
The homogeneity of variances test showed sig. = ,640 which is greater than ,05 and
therefore this assumption has not been violated and analysis can continue.

Tab. 4.1.8: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

.Next time I will definitely buy the same brand again

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

,
6
4
,678 5 314 0

ANOVA table shows significance of ,000, therefore the null hypothesis can be rejected
and we can state that there is a significant difference.

Tab. 4.1.9: ANOVA

Next time I will definitely buy the same brand again

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
,
0
0
Between Groups 72,544 5 11,154 0
Within Groups 408,443 314 14,509 1,301
Total 480,988 319
Post hoc comparisons with Tukey test were conducted to see where the significant
difference between means of the chosen variable occurs. The test revealed that there is
statistically significant difference between iPhone and Huawei, iPhone and Samsung and
iPhone and Other.

Tab.4.1.10: Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable:NexttimeIwilldefinitelybuythesamebrandagain Tukey HSD

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

(J) Difference
(I) (I-
Current Std. Lower Upper
Current BRAND BRAND J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

Huawei ,
0
iPhone 0
-,855* ,226 3 -1,50 -,21
Microsoft /
Nokia -,094 ,349 1,000 -1,10 ,91

Other ,236 ,246 ,930 -,47 ,94

Samsung ,125 ,247 ,996 -,58 ,83

Sony -,189 ,342 ,994 -1,17 ,79

iPhone ,
0
0
,855* ,226 3 ,21 1,50
,761 ,303 ,123 -,11 1,63
,
0
Huawei 0
1,091* ,174 0 ,59 1,59
Microsoft /
Nokia ,
0
Other
0
Samsung ,980* ,175 0 ,48 1,48
Sony ,665 ,295 ,215 -,18 1,51
Microsoft / Huawei ,094 ,349 1,000 -,91 1,10
Nokia iPhone -,761 ,303 ,123 -1,63 ,11

Other ,330 ,318 ,905 -,58 1,24

Samsung ,219 ,319 ,983 -,70 1,13

Sony -,096 ,397 1,000 -1,23 1,04
Other Huawei -,236 ,246 ,930 -,94 ,47
iPhone ,
0
Microsoft /
0
Nokia
-1,091* ,174 0 -1,59 -,59
Samsung
-,330 ,318 ,905 -1,24 ,58
Sony
-,111 ,200 ,994 -,68 ,46
 -,425 ,310 ,745 -1,31 ,46
Samsung Huawei -,125 ,247 ,996 -,83 ,58
,
0
0
iPhone -,980* ,175 0 -1,48 -,48

Microsoft / -,219 ,319 ,983 -1,13 ,70

Nokia
,111 ,200 ,994 -,46 ,68
Other
Sony -,314 ,311 ,914 -1,21 ,58
Sony Huawei ,189 ,342 -,79 1,17
,994
iPhone -,665 ,295 -1,51 ,18
,215
Microsoft / ,096 ,397 -1,04 1,23
Nokia 1,000
,425 ,310 -,46 1,31
Other ,745
Samsung ,314 ,311 ,914 -,58 1,21
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

By comparing the means of the significantly different groups by looking at the mean plot,
we can see that iPhone users are without doubt the most willing ones to buy their brand
again according to the mean of their scores. By rejecting the null hypothesis and failing to
reject the alternative hypothesis, we can state that there is a significant difference of
iPhone and other brands’ users of smartphones in willingness to buy the same brand again
and after comparison of their means, we conclude that iPhone users are more willing to
buy their brand again than Huawei users,
Samsung users and users of the brands in the column “Other”.

Fig. 4.1.10: Means of Samebrandagain

HB: iPhone users have higher score of self-identity related statements than other
brands’ users.
This hypothesis seeks to confirm an assumption that users of iPhone hold a better score
on self-identity related statements in the questionnaire than owners of other smartphones.
According to descriptive statistics of the questionnaire results, two biggest groups of
smartphone users are iPhone (39%) and Samsung (20%) owners.
These two brands also have superiority in numbers regarding respondents’ preferred
brand if they had a free choice (55% and 16%). Therefore, we assume that iPhone’s and
Samsung’s unequivocal triumph in these questions may denote certain amount of self-
brand connections of only these brands’ users and the following analysis will provide
with information about which brand users have more self-brand connections.

The strength of self-brand connection between the user and his/her brand is measured by
assessing an overall ratio of a variable related to self-identity. This variable was created as
a transformation of eight different variables into a single one and was counted as a mean
of values of variables concerning statements examining a self-identity towards user’s
current smartphone brand. These statements are namely:
 1. I can identify myself with the brand.

2. This brand reflects my personality.

3. This brand symbolizes what kind of person I would like to be.

4. This brand contributes to my image.

5. This brand has a positive impact on what others think of me.

6. This brand makes me feel unique.

7. This brand makes me feel like I'm part of something.

8. I feel I contribute to a better future with this brand.

Tab.4.1.11: CurrentBRAND

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid 32 10,0 10,0 10,0

125 39,1 39,1 49,1

Huawei iPhone
16 5,0 5,0 54,1
Microsoft / Nokia
74,7
66 20,6 20,6
Other
94,7
Samsung 64 20,0 20,0
100,0
Sony 17 5,3 5,3

Total 320 100,0 100,0

First, a test of normality was conducted to see if there is a normal distribution of data
regarding the dependent variable. The dependent variable consisted of 9 groups, where
there were a few groups with low sample size (LG with n=11, Acer with n=3 and HTC
with n=6) which were moved into the group “Other” so each group had sufficiently big
sample size at least around n=20. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed p-values of self-identity
in each group greater than 0,05 except iPhone and Samsung. Sig. greater than 0,05 means
that self-identity scores are normally distributed for smartphone users and we can proceed
further with ANOVA, whereas sig. lower than this value is considered not normally
distributed. Normal distribution of data is one of the assumptions of running ANOVA
analysis, but the final decision of proceeding or not depends on the researchers; especially
in this situation, when one cannot expect perfectly normally distributed data when Likert
scale containing ordinal data is used; moreover, ANOVA is quite resistant to a few
deviations. The authors therefore decided to proceed with analysis even if the distribution
of data is not perfectly normal.

Tab.4.1.12: Tests of Normality

Shapiro-
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Wilk

CurrentBRAND Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

selfidentityMEAN Huawei ,085 32 ,200* ,967 32 ,424
*
iPhone ,060 125 ,200 ,970 125 ,007

Microsoft / Nokia ,116 16 ,200* ,979 16 ,952

Other ,104 66 ,076 ,957 66 ,024

Samsung ,119 64 ,025 ,938 64 ,003

Sony ,199 17 ,072 ,872 17 ,024

A null and alternative hypothesis was determined to be tested:

H0: There is no difference in self-identity scores of smartphone users of iPhone and other
brands’ users.
H1: There is significant difference in self-identity scores of smartphone users of iPhone
and other brands’ users.
The Levene’s test was used to find out whether there is a homogeneity of variances within
the dependent variable as it is another assumption for ANOVA. The test showed
statistically significant difference of ,291 which is greater than p-value of 0,05. Therefore
the homogeneity was not violated and the analysis can proceed further.

Tab. 4.1.13: Test of Homogeneity of Variances selfidentityMEAN

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

,
2
9
1,238 5 314 1

The last assumptions for running ANOVA was also satisfied: the observations are
independent. The next step in the one-way ANOVA is a decision whether to fail to reject
the null hypothesis or not. The ANOVA table shows p-value = ,000, which is smaller than
0,05. This result means that the null hypothesis can be rejected because ANOVA is
significant. We accept the alternative hypothesis and state that there is a significant
difference in self-identity scores among smartphone users.
Tab.4.1.14: ANOVA

selfidentityMEAN
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
,
0
0
Between Groups 32,849 5 6,570 6,213 0
Within Groups 332,058 314 1,058

Total 364,907 319

To evaluate the differences among the groups, post hoc comparisons including Tukey
Honest Signification Difference Test were conducted. In these comparisons, a significant
difference between means of scores of self-identity related statements was detected only
between iPhone and Samsung users.

Tab. 4.1.15: Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: selfidentityMEAN Tukey

HSD

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

(J) Difference
(I) (I-
CurrentBRAN Std. Lower Upper
CurrentBRAND D J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

Huawei iPhone -,38541 ,20373 ,409 -,9696 ,1988

Microsoft / ,18359 ,31487 ,992 -,7193 1,0864

Nokia
,15329 ,22152 ,983 -,4819 ,7885
 Other ,33594 ,22264 ,659 -,3025 ,9744

Samsung

Sony ,54389 ,30863 ,492 -,3411 1,4289

iPhone ,38541 ,20373 ,409 -,1988 ,9696

,56900 ,27305 ,298 -,2139 1,3519

Huawei
*
,53870 ,15647 ,009 ,0900 ,9874
Microsoft /
Nokia ,
0
Other
0
Samsung ,72134* ,15806 0 ,2681 1,1746

Sony ,92929* ,26583 ,007 ,1670 1,6915

Microsoft / Huawei -,18359 ,31487 ,992 -1,0864 ,7193

Nokia -,56900 ,27305 ,298 -1,3519 ,2139
iPhone
Other -,03030 ,28656 -,8520 ,7914
1,000
Samsung ,15234 ,28743 ,995 -,6718 ,9765

Sony ,36029 ,35819 ,916 -,6668 1,3874

Other Huawei -,15329 ,22152 ,983 -,7885 ,4819

iPhone -,53870 *
,15647 ,009 -,9874 -,0900
Microsoft / ,03030 ,28656 1,000 -,7914 ,8520
Nokia
,18265 ,18041 ,914 -,3347 ,6999
Samsung
Sony ,39060 ,27969 ,729 -,4114 1,1926

Samsung -,33594 ,22264 ,659 -,9744 ,3025

,
Huawei 0
iPhone 0
-,72134* ,15806 0 -1,1746 -,2681
Microsoft /
Nokia -,15234 ,28743 ,995 -,9765 ,6718

Other -,18265 ,18041 ,914 -,6999 ,3347

Sony ,20795 ,28059 ,977 -,5966 1,0125

Sony Huawei -,54389 ,30863 ,492 -1,4289 ,3411

iPhone -,92929* ,26583 ,007 -1,6915 -,1670
Microsoft / -,36029 ,35819 ,916 -1,3874 ,6668
Nokia
-,39060 ,27969 ,729 -1,1926 ,4114
Other

Samsung -,20795 ,28059 ,977 -1,0125 ,5966

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Next graph shows means of self-identity scores among users of different brands. As there
is a significant difference only between iPhone and Samsung users, we compare means of
scores of only these brands. It is clear than iPhone users have much higher means than
Samsung users.

Fig. 4.1.15: Means of selfidentityMEAN

To conclude, the alternative hypothesis H1 was failed to reject and therefore we can say
that there is a significant difference between iPhone and Samsung users in their self-
identity scores and by comparing their means, we can state that iPhone users have
higher score of self-identity related statements than Samsung users.

HC: iPhone users have higher score of brand loyalty related statements than other
brands’ users.
To find out if there is any difference between users of different smartphone brands in their
brand loyalty scores, one-way ANOVA will be used to analyze the data. First, a new
variable “brand loyalty” is created by computing means of all brand loyalty related
statements. This variable is consisted of following statements:
1. Next time I will definitely buy the same brand again.

2. If I have a problem with my smartphone (eg. stolen), I will definitely buy the
same brand again.
3. If I got any smartphone for free. I would choose my current brand.

4. I recommend my brand to other people.

 5. I talk to other people about my brand.

The null and alternative hypotheses were created:

H0: There is no difference between users of iPhone and other smartphone brands in their
brand loyalty scores.
H1: There is a significant difference between users of iPhone and other smartphone brands
in their brand loyalty scores.
The following table shows basic frequencies of the chosen variables.

Tab. 4.1.16: Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

CurrentBRAND N Percent N Percent N Percent

brandLOYALTY
32
0 32 100,0%
100,0%

125 100,0% 0 125 100,0%

Huawei 0,0%
16 100,0% 0 16 100,0%
iPhone 0,0%
Microsoft / Nokia 66 100,0% 0 0,0% 66 100,0%
Other 0,0%
64 100,0% 0 64 100,0%
Samsung 0,0%

Sony 17 100,0% 0 0,0% 17 100,0%

The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was conducted and the result showed significance
greater than ,05 in every case except iPhone (,000) and Sony (,004). The
Levene’s test has significance greater than ,05 which means that the homogeneity of
variances was not violated.

Tab. 4.1.17: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

brandLOYALTY

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

,
1
4
1,674 5 314 1
By looking at ANOVA table with significance of ,000, the null hypothesis can be rejected
and therefore we can claim that there is a statistically significant difference between
users of iPhone and other smartphone brands in their brand loyalty scores.
To see where exactly the difference lies, the post hoc tests including Tukey’s test were
conducted. In the next table, the significant places are marked yellow.

Tab. 4.1.18: Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: brandLOYALTY Tukey

HSD

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Difference
(I) (J) (I-
Std. Lower Upper
CurrentBRAND CurrentBRAND J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

Huawei iPhone -,64145* ,20376 ,022 -1,2257 -,0572

Microsoft / ,23125 ,31491 ,978 -,6717 1,1342

Nokia
,35436 ,22155 ,600 -,2809 ,9896
Other
,33438 ,22268 ,664 -,3041 ,9729
Samsung

Sony ,02904 ,30868 1,000 -,8561 ,9141

iPhone ,64145* ,20376 ,022 ,0572 1,2257

*
,87270 ,27309 ,019 ,0897 1,6557

,
0
Huawei 0
,99581* ,15649 0 ,5471 1,4445
Microsoft /
Nokia ,
0
Other
0
Samsung ,97583* ,15808 0 ,5225 1,4291

Sony ,67049 ,26587 ,121 -,0919 1,4328

Microsoft / Huawei -,23125 ,31491 ,978 -1,1342 ,6717

Nokia -,87270 *
,27309 ,019 -1,6557 -,0897
iPhone
Other ,12311 ,28660 ,998 -,6987 ,9449

Samsung ,10312 ,28747 ,999 -,7212 ,9274

Sony -,20221 ,35824 ,993 -1,2294 ,8250

Other -,35436 ,22155 ,600 -,9896 ,2809

,
Huawei
0
iPhone 0
-,99581* ,15649 0 -1,4445 -,5471
Microsoft /
Nokia ,
9
Samsung
9
Sony -,12311 ,28660 8 -,9449 ,6987
 -,01998 ,18043 1,000 -,5374 ,4974

-,32531 ,27973 ,854 -1,1274 ,4768

Samsung -,33438 ,22268 ,664 -,9729 ,3041

,
Huawei 0
iPhone 0
-,97583* ,15808 0 -1,4291 -,5225
Microsoft /
Nokia -,10312 ,28747 ,999 -,9274 ,7212

Other ,01998 ,18043 -,4974 ,5374

1,000 ,
Sony -,30533 ,28063 886 -1,1100 ,4993

Sony Huawei -,02904 ,30868 1,000 -,9141 ,8561

iPhone -,67049 ,26587 ,121 -1,4328 ,0919
Microsoft / ,20221 ,35824 ,993 -,8250 1,2294
Nokia
,32531 ,27973 ,854 -,4768 1,1274
Other
Samsung ,30533 ,28063 ,886 -,4993 1,1100
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From the table, it is clear that there is a statistically significant difference between iPhone
and Smasung users and between iPhone and “Other” users. By comparing means of these
groups, we can see that we can confirm our original hypothesis that iPhone users have
higher score of brand loyalty related statements

than other brands’ users.

Fig. 4.1.18: Means of brandLOAYLTY

 6. 4.3.2 Research question (2): Is there a relationship between
sociodemographic factors and the level of SBC?
In this section, the aim is to test whether different socio-demographic factors have an
effect on having a self-brand connection. Three sub-hypotheses are laid and tested to help
with answering this question.
HA: There is no statistically significant difference in the mean self-identity scores for
female and male smartphone users.
For testing this hypotheses, independent samples t-test is suitable to use as we compare
means of two independent groups. The independent variable is gender (with two groups:
female, male) and the dependent variable is self-identity mean score. In the next table,
there are basic group statistics including N, means, standard deviation and std. error
mean.

Tab. 4.1.19: Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
selfidentityMEAN Female 259 2,7143 1,08942 ,06769

Male 61 2,6250 ,98584 ,12622

In the second table, Leven’s test for equality of variances shows if the variance of scores
of the two groups is the same. Its significance value is greater than alpha level ,005 and
therefore the assumption of variance is not violated. The t-test result reveals that we
cannot reject the null hypothesis. There is not a significant difference for mean scores
of self-identity related statements, between females and males because significance of
t-test is greater than alpha level.

Tab. 4.1.20: Independent Samples Test

Levene'
s
Test for
Equality
o
Variance t-test for Equality of Means
s

95%
Confidence
Sig.
Std. Interval of the
(2tail
Mean Error Difference
ed
Si Differen Differen Lowe Uppe
F g. t df ) ce ce r r
selfidentityMEA Equal
N varian
,
ce s 0 -
assum 8 ,
,
ed 3 2105
5
Equal 3,01 8 , 0 ,3890
9 6 318 558 ,08929 ,15237 7
varian
ce s -
,
not ,
6
1949
assum 2 97,5 , ,3735
ed 3 99 534 ,08929 ,14323 6 3

HB: There is no statistically significant difference in the mean self-identity scores for
smartphone users under and over 26 years.
This hypothesis will be tested the same way as the previous one; by independent samples
t-test due to comparing means of only two groups. The following table shows basic group
statistics.

Tab. 4.1.21: Group Statistics

 AgeGr
oup N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
selfidentityMEAN 1,00 266 2,7632 1,06529 ,06532

2,00 54 2,3727 1,04003 ,14153

The Levene’s test revealed that homogeneity of variances was not validated as
significance is greater than ,05. The t-test itself has significance of 0,14 which is below
the alpha level of ,05 and therefore we can reject the null hypothesis that there is no
statistically significant difference in the mean self-identity scores for smartphone users
under and over 26 years.
Tab. 4.1.22: Independent Samples Test

Levene'
s
Test for
Equality
of
Varianc t-test for Equality of
es Means

95%
Confidence
Sig. Interval of the
Std.
(2tail Difference
Mean Error
ed
Si Differen Differen Lowe Uppe
F g. t df ) ce ce r r

selfidentityMEA
N Equal
varian ,
ce s 9
5
assum ,
ed 3 0788
,
Equal 00 2,46 , 7 ,7020
3 5 318 014 ,39047 ,15838 8
varian
ce s
not ,
0801
assum 2,50 77,2 , ,7008
ed 5 80 014 ,39047 ,15588 0 4

Because t-test showed that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean
self-identity scores for smartphone users under and over 26 years. It however does
not show the effect size, therefore Cohen’s d has to be computed. The effect size is
computed by t*2 / (df^0,5) = 2,465*2 / (318^0,5) = 0,28, which means that the effect is
relatively small.
By comparing the means, we can conclude that smartphone users under 26 are more
prone to establish self-brand connection with their brand.

HC: There is no statistically significant difference in the mean self-identity scores for
employed, self-employed and student smartphone users.
Finding a significant difference among all groups of Occupation variable, comparison of
the means of the self-identity variable is necessary. Because we compare more than two
groups, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be applied. The following table
provides an overview of frequencies.

Tab.4.1.23: Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

OccupNUM N Percent N Percent N Percent

selfidentityMEAN
81 100,0% 0 0,0% 81 100,0%

3 100,0% 0 0,0% 3 100,0%

Employed
Retired 17 100,0% 0 0,0% 17 100,0%
Self-employed
215 100,0% 0 0,0% 215 100,0%
Student

Unemployed 4 100,0% 0 0,0% 4 100,0%

The null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis were created:

H0: There is no statistically significant difference in the mean self-identity scores for
employed, self-employed and student smartphone users.
H1: There is a significant difference in the mean self-identity scores for employed, self-
employed and student smartphone users.
First of all, the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was conducted. The result showed that
each group showed significance under ,05 except Self-employed with sig. = ,000. The
authors decided to proceed further as ANOVA can handle some violations of normal
distributions if the sample size is big enough (at least around 20 in each group). The
groups “Retired” and “Unemployed” were not taken further into consideration as the
sample size is too small to be analyzed by ANOVA.

Tab.4.1.24: Tests of Normality

Shapiro-
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Wilk

OccupNUM Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

selfidetityMEAN ,090 81 ,164 ,955 81 ,007

,204 3 . ,993 3 ,843

Employed
,161 17 ,200* ,910 17 ,098
Retired ,
0
Self-employed
0
Student ,061 215 ,051 ,973 215 0

Unemployed ,265 4 . ,953 4 ,735

The Levene’s test showed sig. = ,315 which is greater than ,05 and therefore the
assumption of homogeneity of variances has not been violated.

Tab. 4.1.25: Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

,
3
1
1,189 4 315 5

Tab. 4.1.26: ANOVA

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1,418 4 ,354 ,
8
Within Groups 363,489 1,154
7
3 ,307 3
1
5
Total 364,907 3
1
9
The ANOVA table shows significance of ,873, which is greater than alpha value of ,05.
Therefore, we accept our null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in mean
self-identity scores between employed, self-employed and student users of
smartphone.

CHAPTER-V

FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Findings

1. Majority of the respondents age in between 19 and 26.

2. Majority of the respondents are female.
3. Majority of the respondents are Salaried.
4. Majority of the respondents are willing to spend Rs 40000-70000 on a
mobile phone.
5. Majority (52.73%) of the respondents use their mobile phones between 3-
6 years.
6. Most (31.82%) of the respondents change their mobile phone model
between 7-12 months.
7. Safe product is the image opinion about iphone in the customers mind.
8. Most(38.18%) of the respondents decide to buy iphone by the review and
advertisements on Social Media.
9. Majority of the respondents spend between 1-3 hours average in their
mobile phone in a day.
10.Majority of the respondents favourite feature of iphone is Inbuilt
Security.
11.Majority of the respondents face battery charging backup problem.
12. Majority(57.27%) of the respondents are satisfied with the after sale
service offered by iphone camera phone.
 13.Majority of the respondents say that they may buy an iphone camera
phone in future if it has fulfilled their needs.
14.Most of the respondents will recommend their friends and family to
purchase an apple iphone

SUGGESTIONS

5.2 Suggestions

1. Compared to some of the android -centric competition out there,

the iPhone’s mAh (milliamp-hour) rating is somewhat low, and
Apple should change that.Despite how economical iOS can be
regarding power consumption, this seems like a poor excuse to
justify a smaller battery. Just imagine the potential benefits of a
power-sipping operating system paired with a ginormous battery;
you’d be away from the charger for extended periods and could be
more confident in your battery throughout the day.Apple could even
take things a step further by making the battery removable such
that it can be serviced more efficiently by the end user instead of
needing to schedule an appointment with an Apple Authorized
Service Provider

2. The iPhone is no slouch in the camera department, but the front-

facing face time camera could do with some improvement.As you
might recall, the front-facing camera system in the iPhone XS/XS
Max received heaps of criticism shortly after launch for making
people look like porcelain dolls in selfies . Apple later resolved the
issues by toning the skin-softening down in a software update, but
Apple could undoubtedly integrate optional beauty mood
feauters into iOS if they wanted to.
 3. The front-facing camera could also be improved with more standard
camera features, such as zoom, which appears to be shamelessly
absent from the selfie-centric Camera app interface.

CHAPTER-VI

CONCLUSION
The purpose of this research paper was to analyze the role and affects of a self-
brand connection between a consumer and a particular brand – with Apple’s iPhone as the
main brand of which others were measured. Furthermore it was sought to understand
what influences the self-congruity between the consumer and a brand – who a typical
consumer with an SBC is and why it is important to seek these SBC’s
Throughout this report it has been evident that the most of the consumers that
acquire an iPhone will most like keep the same brand, for when they need a new phone,
as opposed to most other brands. It was found that this is because of the unique brand
personality of Apple and their compelling quest of being the best. They are unique
because they have very few products and those that they have are made with the best
materials and quality – whereas other brands also have mid and low-tier phones. Having
lower tiered phones does not send the same unique message and would even confuse
some consumers in believing that a cheap phone is equivalent of the iPhone, which isn’t
the case.
The necessity of acquiring SBC’s is because of the loyalty and stable sales over
longer periods – without having consumers shopping around for the best current product –
brands can make the best of their ability for the specific customers with an SBC.
 Other brands have the possibility of acquiring the same group of consumers that
were seen as the most susceptible towards establishing an SBC with the two important
antecedents of an SBC.
- A relatable vision

- Few products

The group, which was found as the most susceptible, were the consumers below
26 years of age with no other defining factor – and is therefore also a defining factor
when deciding on a relatable vision for a brand.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmad, J., & Goode, M. M. H. (2001). Consumers and brands: A study of the impact of
self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, 19(6), 482-492. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/213110375?accountid=8144
Burrel, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Social Paradigms and Organisational Analysis.
Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Ashgate Publishing Limited. 448 p. ISBN: 0
566 05148 6 Hbk
Chaplin, L. N., Roedder John, D. (2005). The Development of Self Brand
Connections in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 119–
129. http://doi.org.zorac.aub.aau.dk/10.1086/426622
Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L. W., & McDonald, R. E. (2015). Celebrity endorsement, self-
brand connection and consumer-based brand equity. The Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 24(5), 449-461. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1700061667?accountid=8144
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand
meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/215030929?accountid=8144
Ferraro, R., Kirmani, A., & Matherly, T. (2013). Look at me! Look at me!
Conspicuous brand usage, self-brand connection, and dilution. JMR, Journal of
Marketing Research, 50(4), 477. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1429487579?accountid=8144
 Annexure
Questionarie:

1.Name

2. Age

[a]18 and under [b]19 - 26 [c]27 - 33 [d]34 - 44

3. Gender

[a] Male [b] Female

4. Civil status

[a] Single [b] In relationship [c] Married

5. Occupation

[a]Self-employed [b] Employed [c] Student [d] Unemployed [e] Retired

6.Income

[a]below 15000[b]15000-25000[c]25000-40000[d]more then 40000

7. Which one of the following brands would you prefer if you had a free choice?

[a] Samsung [b] LG [c] iPhone [d] Sony [e] Other

8. What is your current smartphone brand?

[a] Samsung [b] iPhone [c] Sony [d]Other

9. Which three to four brands have you consumed within the 3-5 years?

[a] Samsung [b]LG [c]iPhone [d]Microsoft / Nokia

10. What motivated you in the consumption of your current smartphone brand?

[a] Wanted to try it out [b] Recommended by peers [c] Advertising [d] I like the design

[e] Better features (eg. camera)

11. Did you compare the products of your current brand to other products before your

consumption?

12. Would you still buy the product of your particular brand – even though a competing

product is equal or even better?

13. This brand makes me feel unique.

14.This brand makes me feel like I'm part of something.

15. I am passionate about this brand.

16. I’m very attached to this brand.

17. I want to continue my relationship with this brand.

18. Next time I will definitely buy the same brand again.

19. If I have a problem with my smartphone (eg. stolen), I will definitely buy the same

brand again.

20. If I got any smartphone for free. I would choose my current brand.

21. I talk to other people about my brand.

22. I recommend my brand to other people.

Yes No May be

23. my current brand is the best on the market

24. No other brand can take the place of this brand.

25. I feel like don't have what I want, if I don't have this smartphone brand.

26. I have a lot of faith in the future of this brand.

27. This brand is reliable and dependable.

28. This brand is trustworthy.

Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Neutral
Disagree