A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED VALUE, BRAND PREFERENCE,

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, AND REPURCHASE INTENTION IN CONTEXT

OF AKIJ TEXTILE MILLS LTD IN BANGLADESH




by




Md. Pavel Hossain
ID: 0220128




An Internship Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Business Administration















INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY, BANGLADESH
August 2006






A RELATIONAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED VALUE, BRAND PREFERENCE,
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, AND REPURCHASE INTENTION IN CONTEXT
OF AKIJ TEXTILE MILLS LTD IN BANGLADESH




by


Md. Pavel Hossain
ID: 0220128





has been approved
August 2006








______________________

Dr. Md. Arif Al-Mahmood
Assistant professor
School of business
Independent University, Bangladesh








August 31, 2006


Dr. Md. Arif Al-Mahmood
Assistant Professor
School of Business
Independent University, Bangladesh

Dear Sir,
I am glad to inform you that I have completed my internship report on A relational study of
perceived value, brand preference customer satisfaction and repurchase intention in context of Akij
Textile Mills in Bangladesh. I have gathered extensive knowledge while I was doing this report.
Though there was some limitation and difficulties but I tried my level best to eliminate those
limitations with your help and your guideline.
Since this is my first full form of co-relational study, I tried my level best to finish this study as
professional manure. I highly appreciate the opportunity to prepare this report.

Yours sincerely,

Md. Pavel Hossain
ID# 0220128



Acknowledgement
During my internship period, at head office of Akij Textile Mills, I got help from many people
including the employees of the company. They provided me with various information, data and
advice. I am grateful to the following persons for their sincere cooperation and coordination.
At first my heartiest thanks to Mr. Sk. Jamil Uddin, director of the Akij Textile Mills Ltd who
have provided me various support, information and advice. Next my sincere tanks go to Mr. Md.
Rakibul Haque, account officer of Akij Textile Mills Ltd who provided me lots of information and
helped me a lot.
At last but never the least my deepest gratitude goes to my supervisor Dr. Md. Arif Al-
Mahmood. He provided me all kinds of feedback and support to finish this report successfully.


























TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
List of Tables

List of Figure
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of the study 2
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Research timeline 4
1.4 Limitations of the study 4
2.0 Review of related literature 5
2.1 Definition of perceived value 5
2.2 Definition of brand preference 7
2.3 Definition of customer satisfaction 7
2.4 Definition of repurchase intention 10
2.5 Relationship between perceived value and repurchase intention 11
2.6 Relationship between brand preference and repurchase intention 13
2.7 Relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention 14
3.0 Operational Definition 15
3.1 Research Questions 15

3.2 Research Hypothesis 16

3.3 Conceptual Framework 16
4.0 Research Methodology 17
4.1 Research design 17
4.2 Sampling method 17
4.3 Survey instrument 18
4.4 Data collection procedure 18
4.5 Data analysis 19
5.0 Findings from questionnaires 19
5.1 Reliability and Descriptive statistics of the Instruments 19
5.2 Correlation Analysis 21
5.3 Stepwise Regression Analysis 22
6.0 Assessment of research hypothesis 24
7.0 Recommendation 25
8.0 Conclusion 26
References 27
Appendices 33










LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Operational Definition of Measured Variables 15
2. Descriptive statistics, and Reliability Coefficient of Measured Variables 20
3. Correlation Matrix for Measured Variables 22
4. Stepwise regression on repurchase intention 23

LIST OF FIGURE
Page
1. Conceptual Framework of Research Variable and their Relationships 16












Executive Summary
This research is a co-relational study. The relationship between perceived value, brand
preference, customer satisfaction are considered as independent variables and repurchase intention
as dependent variable. The purpose of this study is to show how perceived value, brand preference
and customer satisfaction influence over customers repurchase intention. Existing literature
suggests considerable correlation among the variables mentioned above. Questionnaire was used to
collect data regarding perceived value, brand preference, customer satisfaction and repurchase
intention. There were total 14 questions and the sample size was 100. The Statistical Package for
Social Science (SPSS) version 12 software was employed to analyze the data collected from the
actual survey. The researcher runs correlation and stepwise regression on the collected data to
analytically investigate the relations between dependent and independent variables and their extent.
It was found from the investigation that perceived value, brand preference, customer satisfaction are
significantly positively correlated with repurchase intention. This means that if a yarn customer
views perceived value, brand preference and customer satisfaction positively then his or her
intention of repurchase that particular brand of yarn will be positive. That means he or she will
repurchase that particular companys yarn again and again. We also found from the stepwise
regression that brand preference is most significantly correlated with repurchase intention. More
promotional activities should be taken to emphasis brand preference. Finally, considering the time
resource constrain, the researcher tried to follow every possible guideline to establish the
relationship between the variables.



1.0 Introduction
The textile sector plays a very important role in many developed/developing countries. The
textile sector includes spinning, knit and woven sectors, which are called Primary Textile Sector
(PTS). Over the years notable development has been made in the PTS particularly in the field of
spinning sector. Based on the Annual Report-2005 of Bangladesh Textile Mills Association
(BTMA) mechanized capacity of spinning industry in 1972-73, 1983-84, 1993-94 and 2003-04 are
as 853,000, 1,108,000, 2,388,000 and 4,360,000 spindles respectively. In Bangladesh, spinning
sector has contributed and continuing to contribute towards the development of the socio-economic
condition. At present 325 million people are working in the spinning sector. Ninety percent of the
domestic fabrics and yarn requirements are met by our PTS. Akij Textile Mills Ltd is one of the
members of BTMA. It has installed total capacity 51,328 spindles to produce yarn. Akij Textile has
used modern technology and machinery to compete at the competitive market with the good quality
yarn.

Phillip K. Hellier, Gus M. Geursen, Rodney A. Carr and John A. Rickard (2000) conducted an
experimental study where they tried to test general service sector model of repurchase intention
from the consumer theory literature. A key contribution of the study is that they incorporated
perceived value and brand preference into an integrated repurchase intention analysis in the model.
The model describes the extent to which customer repurchase intention is influenced by seven
important factors service quality, perceived equity and perceived value, customer satisfaction, past
loyalty, expected switching cost and brand preference. Some studies have concentrated on
determining the basic antecedent variables to repurchase intention for example, Hocutt (1998).
Other studies, such as Bitner et al. (1990), Bolton and Drew (1991a, b) has considered the single
incident, critical encounters and longitudinal interactions or relationships between these variables.
In this report the model extended by treating perceived value, brand preference, customer
satisfaction as the independent variables and repurchase intention as a dependent variable.

1.1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to illustrate the factors that influence customers repurchase
intention of yarn. This will provide an insight on their expectations and perceptions of repurchase
intention.
Growing evidences support that repurchase intention is influenced by the perceived value, brand
preference and customer satisfaction. These three very significant variables (perceived value, brand
preference and customer satisfaction) will assist yarn selling company to plan and execute
marketing strategies that will maximize their customers repurchase intention as well as the profit.
In addition, if the purchases become successful, then the consumers express their preference for that
particular brands product over the other brands and they praise the organization or recommend it to
others, eventually demonstrating that they are becoming bound to the organization (Zeithaml, Berry,
and Parasuraman, 1996). Therefore, if a yarn customer is able to make a successful buying decision
by considering the perceived value, brand preference and customer satisfaction then he or she is
going to become loyal towards that brand and will buy the product of the same brand next time. At
present, yarn manufacturers are coming up with new technologies and want their customers to buy
their products and get used to it. Factors related to perceived value, brand preference and customer
satisfaction will provide those manufacturers with the strategic and financial insight on the buying
tendency of customers. Moreover, strong strategic weapons like these can eventually help firms
become more profitable and help them continue a competitive advantage in their served markets
(Hampton, 1993). According to the suggestion of the researchers, there are still areas of studies left
in measuring repurchase intention through perceived value, brand preference and customer
satisfaction. Hence, the main reason of this research is to aware the management about the
influence of the three very important factors (perceived value, brand preference and customer
satisfaction) over the customers repurchase intention of yarn.

1.2 Problem Statement
Nowadays, repurchase intention depends on perceived value, brand preference and customer
satisfaction. In todays competitive market, to attract customers and make them loyal by considering
those significant variables (perceived value, brand preference and customer satisfaction) are termed
to be very effective and crucial strategies.

In Bangladesh, spinning industry is very large and competitive. By implementing effective
strategies to make the customers purchase more yarn is going to be a profitable strategy and this
kind of profitable policy results in more new customers, more business with existing customers,
fewer lost customers, more insulation from price competition. For this reason, manufacturers need
to give more perceived value to satisfy customer and attract customer to prefer their brand, so that,
customers repurchase their brand of yarn. Failure to implement this kind of strategy might cause a
huge loss. The current research develops a relationship framework by considering perceived value,
brand preference and customer satisfaction as independent variables and repurchase intention as
dependent variable.

1.3 Research Timeline
2006 Jun Research Proposal Writing.
2006 July Literature Review.
2006 July Development of Conceptual Framework.
2006 July Data Collection Procedure.
2006 Aug Data Analysis and interpretation of the findings.
2006 Aug Submission of draft copy.
2006 Aug Submission of research paper.

1.4 Limitations of the Study
There are some constrains or limitations in this study. The survey was conducted only in
Narayangonj district thus the sample size was small to consider the whole scenario. Limitation of
time was one of the major drawbacks. Sometimes participants were unwilling to answer and it was
difficult to convince them to answer all the questions.

2.0 Review of related literature
2.1 Perceived Value
Perceived value has proven to be a difficult concept to define and measure (Woodruff, 1997).
Broadly defined, perceived value is the results or benefits customers receive in relation to total costs
(which include the price paid plus other costs associated with the purchase). In simple terms, value
is the difference between perceived benefits and costs. However, what constitutes value appears to
be highly personal, idiosyncratic, and may vary widely from one customer to another (Zeithaml,
1988). Research evidence suggests that customers who perceive that they received ``value for
money'' are more satisfied than customers who do not perceive they received ``value for money''
(Zeithaml, 1988). Also perceived value may be used by consumers to ``bundle'' various aspects of
the product relative to competitive offerings. That is, perceived value can be viewed as a relative
measure of the costs and other monetary aspects of the product in comparison to competition. For
this investigation, perceived value will be defined as the consumers' overall assessment of what is
received relative to what is given (Zeithaml, 1988). The connection between perceived value and
customer satisfaction or future intentions has been debated in the services marketing literature.
While it is contended that perceived value has a direct impact on how satisfied customers are with a
supplier (Anderson et al., 1994) and that satisfaction depends on perceived value, little attention has
been paid to customer perceived value in evaluating products (Lemmink et al., 1998). It has been
proposed that future intentions are determined in part by perceived value (Bolton and Drew, 1991).
In making the decision to return to the product manufacturer, customers are likely to consider
whether or not they received ``value for money''. Furthermore, it is possible that customer
satisfaction may be based primarily on the product quality (i.e. product quality dimensions) and that
perceived value is more critical with respect to future intentions. However, it is only recently that
both managers and marketing scientists have begun focusing on the hitherto ignored role of
consumer perceived value as a key strategic variable to help explain repeat purchase behavior,
brand loyalty and relationship commitment. Perceived value however is an abstract concept with
meanings that vary according to context (Sweeney, 1994). In economics for example, perceived
value is equated with utility or desirability, in the social sciences it is understood in the context of
human values such as the instrumental and terminal values suggested by Rokeach (1973), while in
industrial settings perceived value engineering refers to processes designed to reduce costs while
maintaining standards. In marketing however, perceived value is typically defined from the
consumers perspective. The most common definition of perceived value in the marketing literature
is as a ratio or trade-off of total benefits received to total sacrifices (Buzzell and Gale, 1987), while
Sawyer and Dickson (1984) conceptualized perceived value as a comparison of weighted get
attributes to give attributes. Perceptions of perceived value however are not limited to the
functional aspects but may include social, emotional and even epistemic value components (Sheth
et al., 1991). Nonetheless the most popular conceptualization in marketing, and the one employed
in this study, is a functional one, defining perceived value in terms of performance (quality) and
price. Interestingly, the major works modeling perceived value have invariably done so in a
consumer and/or retailing context (Baker, 1990; Dodds and Monroe, 1985) and used willingness to
buy (purchase intentions) as a key consequence of perceived value perceptions. Only Bolton and
Drew (1991) link repeat purchase intentions to perceived value in their study of a continuous
service (telephone services). As pointed out by Bolton and Drew (1991) perceived value is a
richer measure of customers overall evaluation of a service than perceived service quality. All
the above studies explicitly model perceived performance or quality as a direct antecedent of
perceived value, which in turn is a direct driver of purchase/ repurchase intentions.

2.2 Brand Preference.
Market maybe effectively segmented through statistical analysis of brand preference and
selection (Henderson et al., 1998). Single brand preference can be regarded as a measure of loyalty,
which also provides valuable information for customer management and market segmentation
(Gralpois, 1998). Market classification can be obtained by using a Logit regression (Guadagni and
Little, 1983). Several researchers using the decision variables of consumers brand preference,
utilized a joint estimation approach to identifying sub-markets. Customer values give markets a
direction on how best to satisfy their customer needs and increase brand preference (Chudy and
Sant, 1993).

2.3 Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is a well known and established concept in several sciences: marketing
(Fornell and Werneldt, 1987; Fornell and Wernefelt, 1988; Kotler, 1991), consumer research (Yi,
1989), economic psychology (Johnson and Fornell, 1991), welfare-economics (Simon, 1974), and
economics (Van Raaij, 1981; Wrneryd, 1988).

Assuming that the customer is capable of evaluating the product quality, the result is compared
to expectations prior to purchase or consumption (Oliver, 1980). Any discrepancy leads to
disconfirmation; i.e. positive disconfirmation increases or maintains satisfaction and negative
disconfirmation creates dissatisfaction. Having roots in social psychology (Weaver and Brinckman,
1974) and organizational behavior (Ilgen, 1971), expectancy disconfirmation is actually two
processes consisting of the formation of expectations and the disconfirmation of those expectations.
Perceived performance is influenced by the consumers perception of quality, marketing mix, brand
name and company image. Decision research suggests that positive and negative disconfirmations
should weigh very differently on satisfaction. Losses are perceptually greater than gains of equal
amount (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). In line with Kahneman and Tverskys prospect theory,
Anderson and Sullivan (1991) suggest that negative disconfirmation has more impact on
satisfaction than positive disconfirmation at the micro-level. In this article we treat customer
satisfaction as a independent variable and any change in which, impact the customer repurchase
intention. There are two principal interpretations of satisfaction within the literature satisfaction
as a process and satisfaction as an outcome (Parker and Mathews, 2001). Early concepts of
satisfaction research have typically defined satisfaction as a post-choice evaluative judgment
concerning a specific purchase decision (Oliver, 1980; Churchill and Suprenant, 1992; Bearden and
Teel, 1983; Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988). The most widely accepted model, in which satisfaction is a
function of disconfirmation, which in turn is a function if both expectation performance (Oliver,
1997). The disconfirmation paradigm in process theory provides the grounding for the vast
majority of satisfaction studies and encompasses four constructs expectations, preference,
disconfirmation and satisfaction (Caruana et al., 2000). This model suggests that the effects of
expectations are primarily through disconfirmation, but they also have an effect through perceived
performance, as many studies have found a direct effect of perceived performance on satisfaction
(Spreng and Page, 2001). Swan and Combs (1976) were among the first to argue that satisfaction is
associated with performance that fulfils expectations, while dissatisfaction occurs when
performance falls below expectations. In addition, Poisz and Von Grumbkow (1988) view
satisfaction as a discrepancy between the observed and the desired. This is consistent with value-
percept disparity theory (Westbrook and Reilly, 1983) which was developed in response to the
problem that consumers could be satisfied by aspects for which expectation never existed (Yi,
1990). The value percept theory views satisfaction as an emotional response triggered by a
cognitive-evaluative process (Parker and Mathews, 2001). In other words, it is the comparison of
the object to ones values rather that an expectation. Customers want a meeting between their
values (needs and wants) and object of their evaluations (Paker and Mathews, 2001). More
recently, renewed attention has been focused on the nature of satisfaction emotion, fulfillment and
state (Parker and Mathews, 2001). Consequently, recently, recent literature adds to this perspective
in two ways. First, although traditional models implicitly assume that customer satisfaction is
essentially the result of cognitive processes, new conceptual developments suggest that effective
processes may also contribute substantially to the explanation and prediction of customer
satisfaction (Fornell and Wernerfelt, 1987; Westhrook, 1987; Westbrook and Oliver, 1991).
Second, satisfaction should be viewed as a judgment based on the cumulative experience made with
a certain product or service rather than a transaction-specific phenomenon (Wilton and Nicosia,
1986).
Based on this review, customer satisfaction is defined as the result of a cognitive and affective
evaluation, where some comparison standard is compared to the actually perceived performance. If
the perceived performance is less than expected, customer will be dissatisfied. On the other hand, if
the perceived performance exceeds expectations, customers will be satisfied.

2.4 Repurchase Intention
A repurchase intention can be subsumed under the more general concept of ``behavioral
intention'' which includes intentions other than those related to repurchases, e.g. intention to
purchase a product for the first time, word-of-mouth intentions, and complaint intentions.
Sometimes, particularly in textbooks (e.g. Kotler, 1997), ``behavioral intention'' is viewed as one
facet of ``attitude'', together with cognition and affect. Many authors, however, prefer to view
behavioral intention as distinct from attitude, e.g. as a particular form of volition that transforms the
attitude into guided bodily responses (cf. Belk, 1985; Bagozzi et al., 1989). For example, in the
Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975) model, attitudes (and subjective norms) are viewed as antecedents of behavioral
intentions. Moreover, it has been suggested that purchase intentions incorporate not only
psychological influences but also reflect economic and environmental considerations as well as an
assessment of the individual's ability, willingness and need to make a purchase (Pickering and
Isherwood, 1974). Customers' attitudes and intentions are important concepts in consumer
marketing research, but attitudes and intentions of professional purchasers are also topics of concern
in industrial marketing. A discussion of the attitudes of professional purchasers can thus be found
in several of the early models of organizational buying behavior. For example, Webster and Wind
(1972, p. 18) note that in the final analysis, all organizational buying is individual behavior:
. . . only the individual as an individual or as a member of a group can define and analyze buying
situations, decide, and act.
Moreover, it is the specific individual who is the target of marketing efforts, not the abstract
organization. Similar to consumer markets, then:
. . . it is important to understand the organizational buyer's psychological characteristics and
especially his predispositions, preference structure and decision model as the basis for marketing
strategy decisions (Webster and Wind, 1972).
Another example is Sheth's (1973) model of industrial buying behavior, in which we find
satisfaction with past purchases (i.e. an attitude) as one of the determinants of supplier choice.

2.5 Relationship between perceived value and repurchase intention

Perceived value, which in turn is a direct driver of purchase/repurchase intentions. However
(with the exception of Bolton and Drew although they did not actually measure repurchase
intentions), not one of these studies investigated the role satisfaction with past purchases might play
in tandem with value and intentions. An explanation for this is that models of perceived value in a
pre-consumption situation are likely to differ significantly from models of perceived value
perception following purchase.
The consumer has experience, and is thus familiar with the product/brand evaluation is therefore
less influenced by extrinsic cues such as store name and ambience, brand image or marketer
communication (Sweeney, 1994). Furthermore, post-purchase, the consumer, having first hand
experience with the product, is able to form satisfaction/dissatisfaction evaluations but not in the
pre-purchase situation. The current study captures perceived value perceptions, satisfaction and
repeat purchase intentions a short time following purchase. It is only recently, however, that both
managers and marketing scientists have begun focusing on the hitherto ignored role of consumer
perceived value as a key strategic variable to help explain repeat purchase behavior, brand loyalty
and relationship commitment. Perceived value, however, is an abstract concept with meanings that
vary according to context (Sweeney, 1994).
In economics for example perceived value is associated with utility or desirability, in the social
sciences it is understood in the context of human values such as the instrumental and terminal
values suggested by Rokeach (1973), while in industrial settings perceived value engineering refers
to processes designed to reduce costs while maintaining standards. In marketing, however,
perceived value is typically defined from the consumers perspective. Perceptions of value however
are not limited to the functional aspects but may include social, emotional and even epistemic value
components (Sheth et al., 1991). Nonetheless, the most popular conceptualization in marketing, and
the one employed in this study, is a functional one, defining perceived value in terms of
performance (quality) and price (a sacrifice).
The major works modeling value have invariably done so in a consumer and/or retailing context
(Baker, 1990; Dodds and Monroe, 1985; Dodds et al., 1991; Liljander, 1994; Sweeney, 1994) and
have used willingness to buy (prepurchase intentions) as a key consequence of value perceptions
(see Bolton and Drew, 1991, who use re-purchase intentions, for an exception). Pre-purchase,
consumers may refrain from purchasing a product if the price (a key sacrifice) is outside their range
or the price signals that the quality is inferior. Of course it stands to reason that if the price is
unacceptable then the offer must have little, if any, net perceived value (Dodds et al., 1991).
Therefore, it is understandable that, in a pre-purchase situation, perception of perceived value might
directly influence willingness to buy (or repurchase intention), such as depicted in models of Dodds
et al. (1991), Sweeney (1994) and Zeithaml (1988).





2.6 Relationship between brand preference and repurchase intention

The effect of brand preference on willingness to buy has rarely been examined (Dodds et al.,
1991). Encouraging approaches to the more precise specification of customer choice behavior are
provided by developments in consideration set theory by Kardes et al. (1993), Roberts and Lattin
(1991, 1997) and Shocker et al. (1991). Constructive advances also appear in the structural models
of customer preference and repurchase by Andreassen and Lindestad (1998), Erdem and Swait
(1998), Pritchard et al. (1999) and Roest and Pieters (1997). This paper contends that there is a
causal link between the disposition of the customer to favor the product of a specific supplier (brand
preference) and the customers willingness to buy that product again from the same supplier that
means the strength of brand preference has a positive direct effect on repurchase intention.

2.7 Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and repurchase intention
A direct positive relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention is
supported by a wide variety of product and service studies (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Bolton,
1998; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Fornell, 1992; Oliver, 1980; Patterson and Spreng, 1997; Rust and
Zahorik, 1993; Selnes, 1998; Swan and Trawick, 1981; Taylor and Baker, 1994; Woodside et al.,
1989). These studies establish that overall customer satisfaction with a product is strongly
associated with the behavioral intention to return to the same product producer. However, it must
be kept in mind that the direct positive relationship of satisfaction upon repurchase intention is a
simplification of the matter. While customer satisfaction is a major factor, it is only one of the many
variables that can impact upon customer repurchase intention (Jones and Sasser, 1995; Liljandar
and Strandvik, 1995; Mittal and Lassar, 1998; Sharma and Patterson, 2000; Srinivasan, 1996;
Storbacka et al., 1994).

3.0 Operational Definition
Table 1: Operational Definitions of Measured Variables.
Measured Variable Operational Definitions
Perceived value will be operationally defined by Dodds
et al. (1991), Lundstrom and Lamont (1976),
Mano and Oliver (1993), Zeithaml (1988)
Brand preference will be operationally defined by Martensen
(1993), Oliva et al. (1992), Oliver and Swan
(1989), Singh (1991)
Customer satisfaction will be operationally defined by Oliver
(1981, 1993) Oliver and Swan (1989),
Westbrook and Oliver (1981)
Repurchase intention will be operationally defined by Bagozzi
(1982), Clawson (1972), Fornell (1992)

3.1 Research Questions
Investigative questions for the study are:
1. Is there any significant relationship between perceived value and repurchase intention in
context of Akij Textile Mills Ltd in Bangladesh?
2. Is there any significant relationship between brand preference and repurchase intention in
context of Akij Textile Mills Ltd in Bangladesh?
3. Is there any significant relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention
in context of Akij Textile Mills Ltd in Bangladesh?
3.2 Research Hypotheses
The hypotheses which can be derived from the research questions are:
1. There is a significant relationship between perceived value and repurchase intention in
context of Akij Textile Mills Ltd in Bangladesh.
2. There is a significant relationship between brand preference and repurchase intention in
context of Akij Textile Mills Ltd in Bangladesh.
3. There is a significant relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention in
context of Akij Textile Mills Ltd in Bangladesh.


3.3 Conceptual framework








Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of Research Variables and their Relationships.

4.0 Research Methodology
4.1 Research Design
The conceptual framework in Figure 1 shows the structure of the relationship among the
measured variables. The research questions and hypotheses are derived from this model. The
Perceived Value
Customer Satisfaction
Brand Preference
Repurchase Intention
purpose of the research is to investigate the relationship between independent variable perceived
value, brand preference and customer satisfaction and dependent variable repurchase intention.
The present research is a co-relational study because research that studies the relationship
between two or more variables is known as a co-relational study Cooper, and Schindler (2002).
Therefore a co-relational research design has been used for appropriately answering all the research
questions and for testing the hypothesis. The conceptual framework indicates the design of the
model is a co-relational study. Questionnaires were used to collect data. This instrument was used
for the following reasons:
i) Filling up a questionnaire doesnt take that much of time so this increases the respondents
willingness to provide more accurate data.
ii) Respondents secrecy can be strictly maintained.
iii) It is easy to quantify all the data from the questionnaire for quantitative analysis.
Therefore, questionnaire is the most useful method to collect data for this study.

4.2 Sampling Method
The populations of this research are the yarn buyer in Narayangong Bscic Shilpa Nagari. The
sample size is 100. The sampling technique used is non-probability convenience sampling
technique. Data was gathered through questionnaire which was distributed to 100 knitting
company. Ninety three (93) questionnaires were found correct for data analysis. Therefore,
researcher uses 93 questionnaires for data analysis.

4.3 Survey Instrument
Questionnaire has been used in order to gather data from this study. Since previous researchers
also used questionnaire to complete there survey. Questionnaire is also time saver, money saver
and its a quick process.
A structured question is used in this research to collect data from the respondents. The
questionnaires divided in four sections. The sections are Perceived Value, Brand Preference,
Customer Satisfaction and Repurchase Intention. There are 14 questions. 1 4 are for perceived
value, 5 7 are for brand preference, 8 11 are for customer satisfaction and 12 14 are for
repurchase intention. All question has used 5-point liker scale regarding from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree).

4.4 Data Collection Procedure
The present research is addressing unique characteristics so availability of secondary data is
impossible. Therefore data was collected through questionnaire. Reasons for choosing this
research method. These are as follows:
1. Data can be collected at a relatively low cost.
2. Accurate response is obtained since there is no scope of interviewer bias.
3. Data can also be collected at a relatively short time.

Since this study does intend to measure repurchase intention to a particular or defined area,
respondents will be randomly able to move towards to the near sales center of Akij Textile Mills
Ltd.

4.5 Data Analysis
Pearsons Correlation analysis is to find out whether any relationship exists between the
independent and dependent variables. Correlation analysis is to describe the degree to which one
variable is linearly related to one another (William and Anuchit, 2002).
After collecting the data, Pearsons co-relational matrix for the variables are prepare and the
researchers look for significant correlations. The researcher used descriptive, co-relation, and
stepwise regression to test the strength of association between the studied variables.
The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 12 software is employed to analyze
the data collected from the actual survey.

5.0 Findings from Questionnaires
5.1 Reliability and Descriptive statistics of the Instruments
Parameswaram, Greenberg, & Bellenger (as cited in Ngansathil, 2001, p.121) stated that there
are two basic requirements of measurement. First, measurement must be an operationally definable
process. Second the outcome of the measurement process must be repeatable (reliability).
Gregory (1996) defined reliability as the extent to which measurements of the particular test
are repeatable. In other words, the measuring procedure should yield consistent results on repeat
tests. The more consistent the results given by repeated measurements, the higher the reliability of
the procedure (Carmines & Zeller).
Nunally (1970) suggested that there are at least four methods of estimating the reliability
coefficient: test-retest method (repeating method), alternative form, subdivided-rest method
(referred to as split-half method), and methods concerning the internal consistency.
The most highly recommended measure of internal consistency is provided by coefficient alpha
() or Cronbachs alpha (1951) as it provides a good reliability estimate in most situations. The
nearer the value of alpha () to 1, the better the reliability. If the value is low, either there are too
few items or there is very little commonality among the items (Churchill, 1979).
Table: 2
Descriptive statistics, and Reliability Coefficient of Perceived value, Brand preference, customer
satisfaction and repurchase intention
Scale No. of Items Alpha Mean SD
Perceived Value 4 0.75 4.33 0.55
Brand Preference 3 0.70 4.39 0.58
Customer Satisfaction 4 0.69 4.23 0.64
Repurchase Intention 4 0.58 4.48 0.46

Note: n=93

For the early stages of the any research, Nunnally (1978) suggested that the reliability of 0.50-
0.60 is sufficient, although a coefficient of 0.70 or above is desirable (Hair et al., 1998).
In this study, the coefficient alphas for the different constructs were computed using the
reliability procedure in SPSS (version 12.0). The reliabilities of most constructs in this study fall
within the acceptable range (0.50-0.80).
Mean scores have been computed by equally weighting the mean scores of all items. On a five
point scale mean score for Perceived value is 4.33 (sd = .55). The mean score for Brand preference
is 4.39 (sd = .58). The mean score for Customer satisfaction is 4.23 (sd = .64) and the mean score
for Repurchase intention is 4.48 (sd =.46)

5.2 Correlation Analysis
A correlation analysis was conducted on all the variables to explore the relationship between
variables. In interpreting the strength of relationships between variables, the guidelines suggested
by Rowntree (1981) were followed his classification of the correlation coefficient (r) is as follows:
0.0 to 0.2 Very weak, negligible
0.2 to 0.4 Weak, low
0.4 to 0.7 Moderate
0.7 to 0.9 Strong, high marked
0.9 to 1.0 Very strong, very high
The bivariate correlation procedure was a subject to a two tailed test of statistical significance at
two different levels highly significant (p<.001) and significant (p<.01) or (p<.05). The results of
the correlational analysis are shown in Table 3:
Table 3
Correlation Matrix for Perceived value, Brand preference, customer satisfaction and repurchase
intention

Per_Value Bra_Preference Cus_satis Repurchase_ inten

Per_Value .58** .31** .47**

Bra_Preference .50** .53**

Cus_satis .50**

Repurchase_inten




Correlation analysis for all the variables is shown in Table 3. It examines the correlation among
Perceived value, Brand preference, customer satisfaction and repurchase intention. The variables
significantly correlated with Repurchase Intention were Perceived value (r= .47, p<.01), Brand
Preference (r=.53, p<.01), and Customer Satisfaction (r=.50, p<.01).

5.3 Stepwise Regression Analysis
Stepwise regression was conducted to asses the relationship between variables. Hanushek and
Jackson (1977) suggested that stepwise regression is a useful procedure in determining most
Note: **p <.01.
significantly related variables in explaining the behavior in question and this procedure not only
gives an indication of how comprehensive the effect of the independent variable is, but also details
which aspects of a grossly defined variable have been differentially affected. Cohen and Cohen
(1975) cautioned that, when an investigator has a large pool of potential independent variables and
very little theory to guide selection among them, he may be benefited by using stepwise regression.
The authors noted that in the use of stepwise regression analysis probably the most serious problem
arises when a relatively large number of independent variables are used. Since the significant test
of an independent variables contribution to R
2
proceeds in ignorance of the large number of other
such tests being performed at the same time for the other competing independent variables, there
can a be very serious capitalization by chance. However, the authors suggested that if the
researcher has selected both dependent and independent variable based on grounded theory, and the
original independent variables (before stepwise selection) is not too large, in that case stepwise
regression will work as an useful tool in testing hypothesis.
Table 4
Stepwise Regression on Repurchase intention

Variable B SEB R
2
R
2

Step 1 .291
Brand Preference .428 .070 .539***
Step 2 .364 .073
Brand Preference .303 .077 .382***
Customer Satisfaction .226 .070 .314**
Step 3 .402 .038
Brand Preference .197 .088 .248*
Customer Satisfaction .220 .068 .306**
Perceived Value .200 .085 .237*

*p<.05 **p<.01, ***p<.001.

Table 4 depicts that in yarn industry Brand Preference (p <.05), Customer satisfaction (p <.01)
and Perceived Value (p<.05) were found to be statistically significantly related with customers
Repurchase intention. These results provided a full support for research hypotheses. These three
predictor variables together explained 40% of the variance in Repurchase intention. Brand
Preference, Customer Satisfaction and Perceived Value individually explained about 29%, 7%, and
4% of the variance in Repurchase intention.

6.0 Assessment of research hypothesis
Research Hypothesis
There is a significant relationship between Perceived value, Brand preference, customer
satisfaction and repurchase intention
From the findings of the table 3, the variables significantly correlated with Repurchase Intention
were Perceived value (r= .47, p<.01), Brand Preference (r=.53, p<.01), and Customer Satisfaction
(r=.50, p<.01). So the results of co-relational analysis have provided support for research
hypothesis.
The results of stepwise regression analysis depicts that in yarn industry Brand Preference (p
<.05), Customer satisfaction (p <.01) and Perceived Value (p<.05) were found to be statistically
significantly related with customers Repurchase intention. These results provided a full support for
research hypotheses. These three predictor variables together explained 40% of the variance in
Repurchase intention. Brand Preference, Customer Satisfaction and Perceived Value individually
explained about 29%, 7%, and 4% of the variance in Repurchase intention. So the results of
stepwise regression analysis also provided full support to research hypotheses.

7.0 Recommendation
From the above discussion and stepwise regression, we can see that brand preference is
significantly correlated with customers repurchase intention. Therefore, it is important to the
management of the company to make their brand preferable to the customers by taking necessary
steps. The steps might include more promotional measures to uplift the image of the brand, to
enhance the budget regarding the brand related issues etc.
Customer satisfaction is the next significant variable that has a definite influence over repurchase
intention. It is considered to be a very significant factor to satisfy the existing as well as the
potential customers. Satisfaction to customers mind can be guaranteed by providing quality yarn in
the spinning industry. Hence, the companies should focus on making their customers to buy good
quality yearn again and again.
The last recognized significant variable of this study has been the perceived value that is
measured by the customers. Companies need to supply better quality yearn at a price affordable to
their customers. The perceived value is greater when the customers feel their purchased yarn is
worthy of the price paid by them. Companies should notice the factors, for example, strength, that
can contribute in enhancing the perceived value of the customers.

8.0 Conclusion
Eventually, we reach in decision that in this competitive spinning industry perceived value,
brand preference and customer satisfaction (independent variables) is very important factors to
maintain customers repurchase intention (dependent variable). Hence, to make a customer
repurchase yarn and make loyal to Akij Textile Mills, it is necessary to maintain perceived value,
satisfy customer through good quality yarn and brand preference through promotion of Akij yarn.
However, this relationship study will help for the future study and useful guideline for this kind of
research.

































References

Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and
profitability: findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53-55.

Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998). Customer loyalty and complex services International
Journal of Service Industry Management. 9(1), 7-23.

Anderson, E. and Sullivan, M.W. (1991). Intra-industry Differences in the Impact of Product
Performance on Customer Satisfaction. University of Michigan-School of Business Administration.

Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125-43.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1982). A field investigation of causal relations among cognitions, affect, intentions, and
behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 562-584.

Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, J. and Yi, Y. (1989). An investigation into the role of intentions as
mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 35-62.

Baker, J.A. (1990). The effect of retail store environments of consumer perceptions of quality, price
and value. An unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Belk, R.W. (1985). Issues in the intention-behavior discrepancy. Research in Consumer Behavior, 1, 1-
34.

Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.M. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990). The service encounter: diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 71-84.

Bolton, R.N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customers relationship with a continuous
service provider: the role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17(1), 45-65.

Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991). A multistage model of customers' assessments of service quality
and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 275-84.

Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991a) A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service changes on
customer attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 1-9.

Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991b). A multistage model of customers assessments of service quality
and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375-84.


Buzzell, R. and Gale, B. (1987), The PIMS Principles, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Carminees, e. g., and Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. CA: Sage Publications.

Chudy, B. and Sant, R. (1993). Customer-driver competitive positioning an approach towards
developing an effective customer service strategy. Marketing and Research Today, 21, 155-169.

Churchill, G.A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.

Clawson, C.J. (1972). Marketing applications of intentions data in Venkatesan, M. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research.
Association for Consumer Research, College Park, MA, 522-35.

Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences. NJ: John Willey & sons.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 197-
334.

Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension.
Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.

Dodds, W.B. and Monroe, K.B. (1985).The effect of brand and price information on product
evaluations in Hirschman, E. and Holbrook, M.B. (Eds). Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 85-
90.

Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991). The effect of price, brand and store information on
buyers product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307-319.

Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 7(2), 131-157.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience. Journalof
Marketing, 56(1), 6-21.

Fornell, C. and Werneldt, B. (1987). Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint
management: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 337-346.

Fornell, C. and Wernefelt, B. (1988). Model for customer complaint management. Marketing Science,
7, 271-286.


Gregory, R. W. (1969). The request for a: developments in multiple comparison procedures in the
quarter century since Games (1971). Review of educational research, 66, 269-306.

Hanushek, E. A., and Jackson, J. E. (1977). Statistical methods for social scientists. NY: Academic
Press Inc.

Hocutt, M.A. (1998). Relationship dissolution model: antecedents of relationship commitment and the
likelihood of dissolving a relationship. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(2),
189-200.

Ilgen, D.R. (1971). Satisfaction with performance as a function of the initial level of expectation and
the deviation from expectation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 345-361.

Jones, T.O. and Sasser, W.E. Jr (1995). Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard Business
Review, 73(6), 88-99.

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory. An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

Kardes, F.R., Kalyanaram, G., Chandrashekaran, M. and Dornoff, R.J. (1993). Brand retrieval,
consideration set composition, consumer choice, and the pioneering advantage. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20, 62-75.

Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing Management. Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lemmink, J., de Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (1998). The role of value in the delivery process of
hospitality services. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 159-177.

Liljander, V. (1994). Introducing deserved service and equity into service quality models, in
Klienaltenkamp, M. (Ed.). Dienstleistungsmarketing-Konzeptionen und Anwendungen, Gabler
Edition Wissenschaft, Berlin.

Lundstrom, W.J. and Lamont, L.M. (1976). The development of a scale consumer discontent. Journal
of Market Research, 13, 373-381.

Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993) Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 451-466.

Martensen, A. (1993). A model for marketing planning for new products. Marketing and
Research Today, 247-66.

Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1998). Why do customers switch? The dynamics satisfaction versus
loyalty. The Journal of Services Marketing, 12(3), 177-194.

Monroe, K.B. (1990). Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, NY.

Monroe, K.B. and Krishnan, R. (1985). The effect of price on subjective product evaluations, in
Jacoby, J. and Olson, J. (Eds). Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 209-32.

Nunnally, J. C. (1970). Introduction to Psychological Measurement. NY: McGrew Hill.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2
nd
ed.). NY: McGraw Hill.S

Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedence and consequences of satisfaction decisions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 46-49.

Oliva, T.A., Oliver, R.L. and Macmillan, I.C. (1992). A catastrophe model for developing service
satisfaction strategies. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 83-95.

Oliver, R.L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of
Retailing, 57(3), 25-48.

Oliver, R.L. (1993). Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(3), 418-430.

Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in
transactions: a field survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 21-35.

Parameswaran, R., Greenberg B. A., and Bellenger, D. N. (1979). Measuring reliability: A comparison
of alternative techniques. Journal of Marketing Research, xvi, 18-25.

Patterson, P.G. and Spreng, R.A. (1997). Modelling the relationship between perceived value,
satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an empirical
examination. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(5), 414-434.

Pickering, J.F. and Isherwood, B.C. (1974). Purchase probabilities and consumer durable buying
behavior. Journal of The Market Research Society, 16(3), 203-226.


Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E. and Howard, D.R. (1999). Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link in
service contexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 33-48.

Roberts, J.H. and Lattin, J.M. (1991). Development and testing of a model of consideration set
composition. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(4), 429-440.

Roberts, J.H. and Lattin, J.M. (1997). Consideration: review of research and prospects for future
insights. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 406-410.

Roest, H. and Pieters, R. (1997). The nomological net of perceived service quality. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(4), 336-351.

Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Value, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Rust, R.T. and Zahorik, A.J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention and market share.
Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193-215.

Sawyer, A.G. and Dickson, P. (1984). Psychological perspectives on consumer response to sales
promotion. In Jocz, C. (Ed.), Research on Sales Promotion: Collected Papers, Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA, 1-21.

Selnes, F. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships.
European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4), 305-322.

Sharma, N. and Patterson, P.G. (2000). Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and experience as
moderators of relationship commitment in professional, consumer services. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 11(5), 470-490.

Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: a theory of
consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22, 159-170.

Sheth, J.N. (1973). A model of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 37, 50-56.

Shocker, A.D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B. and Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration set influences on
consumer decision-making and choice: issues. Models and Marketing Letters, 2(3), 181-197.

Simon, J.L. (1974). Interpersonal welfare comparison can be made and redistribution decisions.
Kyklos, 27, 68-98.

Singh, J. (1991). Understanding the structure of consumers satisfaction evaluations of service
delivery. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 223-244.

Srinivasan, M. (1996). New insights into switching behavior. Marketing Research, 8(3), 27-33.

Swan, J.E. and Trawick, I.F. (1981). Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfaction with a retail
service. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 49-67.

Sweeney, J. (1994). An investigation of a theoretical model of consumer perceptions of value.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Management and Marketing, Curtain University of
Technology, Perth, Australia.

Taylor, S.A. and Baker, T.L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing,
70(2), 163-178.

Van Raaij, W.F. (1981). Economic psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1(1), 1-24.

Wrneryd, K.E. (1988). Economic psychology as a field of study. In Raaij, W.F.V., v. Veldhoven,
G.M. and Wrneryd, K.E. (Eds), Handbook of Economic Psychology, Kluwer Academic Publisher,
Dordrecht.

Weaver, D. and Brinckman, P. (1974). Expectancy, feedback, and disconfirmation as independent
factors in outcome satisfaction. In Day, R. (Ed.), Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and
Complaint Behavior, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

Webster, F.E. and Wind, Y. (1972). A general model for understanding organizational buying
behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36, 12-19.

Westbrook, R.A. and Oliver, R.L. (1981). Developing better measures of consumer satisfaction: some
preliminary results. In Monroe, K.B. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, 8, Association for
Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, 94-99.

Woodruff, R.B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139-53.

Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L. and Daly, R.T. (1989). Linking service quality, customer satisfaction, and
behavioral intention. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9(4), 5-17.

Yi, Y. (1989). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In Zeithaml, V.A. (ed.), Review of
Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 68-123.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.














Appendices
Survey Questionnaire for Yarn Customer

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your feedback is integral to my academic
research. Your answer will remain strictly confidential and will be use for research purpose only.
Thank you again for your time.


Name of the Respondent:
Designation:
Name of the Company:
Contact Number:


1) Have you purchased any yarn during the past year?

1. Yes 2. No

2) Which brand of yarn in the following list you prefer most? (If needed tick more than one)


1. Akij Textile

2. Padma Textile

3. Square Textile

4. A G C Spinning

5. Mother Textile

Please mention why_______________________________________________________


The 14-item variable scales used in the study measuring Perceived Value, Brand
Preference, Customer Satisfaction and Repurchase Intention in context of Akij
Textile Mills Ltd.




(If others, please specify)
Perceived Value

1. The Price of the companys yarn is low, compared to other companys yarn

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree



2. The companys pricing policy provides additional financial benefits

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

3. I regard the price is as acceptable

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

4. I consider Akij yarn to be a good buy

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

Brand Preference

5. Akij Textile meets my yarn requirements better than other companies

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

6. I am interested in trying yarn from another company

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

7. I intend, in the near future, to replace my Akij Textile yarn with yarn from another company

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

Customer Satisfaction

8. My decision to purchase yarn from the company was a wise one

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

9. I feel good about my decision to purchase the companys yarn

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

10. I am please that I purchased yarn from the company

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

11. I would positively recommend the companys yarn to other people

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree








Repurchase Intention

12. Do you intend to continue to purchase, at least the same amount, of yarn from Akij Textile over the next
twelve months? Please use the scale below to report the possibility rather than saying yes/no.

1. Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

13. All things considered, how likely is it that you will actually purchase, at least the same amount, of yarn
from Akij Textile over the next 12 months?

1. Very low 2. Low 3. Neither high nor low 4. High 5. Very high

14. What is the chance in ten that you will continue to purchase at least the same amount of yarn from Akij
Textile over the next 12 months?

1. 0 2. 1 3. 2 4. 5 5. 10






















Reliability of perceived value


Case Processing Summary

N %
Valid
93 100.0
Excluded
(a)
0 .0
Cases
Total
93 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.


Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.753 4



Reliability of Brand Preference


Case Processing Summary

N %
Valid
93 100.0
Excluded
(a)
0 .0
Cases
Total
93 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.


Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.706 3


Reliability of customer satisfaction

Case Processing Summary

N %
Valid
93 100.0
Cases
Excluded
(a)
0 .0
Total
93 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.


Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.698 4


Reliability of repurchase intention

Case Processing Summary

N %
Valid
93 100.0
Excluded
(a)
0 .0
Cases
Total
93 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.


Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.588 3


Descriptives



Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Per_value
93 2.25 5.00 4.3360 .55105
Bra_preference
93 2.00 5.00 4.3978 .58619
Cus_satis
93 2.50 5.00 4.2392 .64681
repur_inten
93 2.67 5.00 4.4875 .46511
Valid N (listwise)
93






Correlations

Per_value
Bra_prefere
nce Cus_satis repur_inten
Pearson
Correlation
1 .580(**) .317(**) .478(**)
Sig. (2-tailed)
. .000 .002 .000
Per_value
N
93 93 93 93
Pearson
Correlation
.580(**) 1 .501(**) .539(**)
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 . .000 .000
Bra_preference
N
93 93 93 93
Pearson
Correlation
.317(**) .501(**) 1 .505(**)
Sig. (2-tailed)
.002 .000 . .000
Cus_satis
N
93 93 93 93
Pearson
Correlation
.478(**) .539(**) .505(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .
repur_inten
N
93 93 93 93
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).



Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(a)

Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1
Bra_prefere
nce
.
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter <=
.050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
2
Cus_satis .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter <=
.050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
3
Per_value .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter <=
.050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
a Dependent Variable: repur_inten


Model Summary

Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1
.539(a) .291 .283 .39391
2
.604(b) .364 .350 .37489
3
.634(c) .402 .381 .36581
a Predictors: (Constant), Bra_preference
b Predictors: (Constant), Bra_preference, Cus_satis
c Predictors: (Constant), Bra_preference, Cus_satis, Per_value


ANOVA(d)

Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regressio
n
5.782 1 5.782 37.263 .000(a)
Residual
14.120 91 .155
1
Total
19.902 92
Regressio
n
7.253 2 3.626 25.803 .000(b)
Residual
12.649 90 .141
2
Total
19.902 92
Regressio
n
7.992 3 2.664 19.909 .000(c)
Residual
11.910 89 .134
3
Total
19.902 92
a Predictors: (Constant), Bra_preference
b Predictors: (Constant), Bra_preference, Cus_satis
c Predictors: (Constant), Bra_preference, Cus_satis, Per_value
d Dependent Variable: repur_inten


Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model
B Std. Error Beta
t Sig.
(Constant)
2.607 .311 8.387 .000
1
Bra_prefere
nce
.428 .070 .539 6.104 .000
2 (Constant) 2.198 .322 6.836 .000
Bra_prefere
nce
.303 .077 .382 3.929 .000

Cus_satis
.226 .070 .314 3.235 .002
3 (Constant)
1.822 .352 5.171 .000
Bra_prefere
nce
.197 .088 .248 2.251 .027
Cus_satis .220 .068 .306 3.225 .002

Per_value
.200 .085 .237 2.351 .021
a Dependent Variable: repur_inten


Excluded Variables(c)

Collinearity
Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig.
Partial
Correlation
Tolerance
Per_valu
e
.249(a) 2.354 .021 .241 .664
1
Cus_sati
s
.314(a) 3.235 .002 .323 .749
2 Per_valu
e
.237(b) 2.351 .021 .242 .663
a Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Bra_preference
b Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Bra_preference, Cus_satis
c Dependent Variable: repur_inten