Motorola’s quality edge comes from its exterior and battery
Marketing Insight, Inc (www.mktinsight.co.kr, CEO: Kim, Jin-Kook), a consumer research company that has been conducting a large scale consumer studies every six months, surveyed 17,080 handset users who purchased a handset in the last six months (September 2005 - March 2006). The study recorded the number of problems consumers experienced on average for every 100 handsets (PPH: Problems Per Hundred), which was 554 PPH in this study. This is a combined number of the problems from each of the following eight categories.
Among the problems experienced by consumers, 32.3% were related to 'Exterior', which took the highest percentage of all eight categories. The second category was 'Battery/Charger' (19.5%), followed by 'Camera function/performance' (13.1%). The total number of problems from these three categories combined was 360 PPH, accounting for 64.9% of the total problems.
Let's take a look at the number of problems of the major handset brands have in these three categories and how the results have changed over the last three waves.
1. Handset initial qual ity - 'Exterior'
Motorola reported the least number of 'Exterior' problems with only 148 PPH and Competitive Index Score (CIS) of 82.6. The second place was taken by Pantech & Curitel (158 PPH, CIS 88.3), followed by Cyon (168PPH, CIS 93.5), Ever (168 PPH, CIS 93.8), SKY (191 PPH, CIS 106.4), and Anycall who had the most problems with 194PPH and CIS of 108.4.
The changes in the competitiveness index of 'Exterior' over the three waves indicate that Anycall, a brand with the biggest market share [Refer to Telecom Report No.31], has a significant effect on other brands as its number of problems fluctuates. For example, in the 1st wave in which Anycall showed the worst performance with CIS of 112.0, all the other brands scored lower than the industry average of 100. Conversely, when Anycall improved its CIS to 101.1 in the 2nd wave, the other brands scored worse than before. The 3rd wave observed just the opposite. In short, whether Anycall's 'Exterior' quality improved or not will clearly determine how the competitive index scores of other makers change.
Most noticeable is the differentiated changing trends of Motorola. In the 2nd wave, Motorola's competitiveness seemed to deteriorate along with other brands as Anycall improved. However, the 3rd wave has witnessed Motorola's quantum leap of improvement, setting the brand apart from others.
Pantech & Curitel has been performing very well in 'Exterior' (CIS: 80.0 → 91.0 → 88.3) while Cyon and Ever have been staying in the middle scoring lower than the industry average. On the other hand, SKY drastically moved down to CIS of 109.3 in 2nd wave from the mid-ranking in the 1st wave and remained in the lower part of the rankings with CIS of 106.4.
The 'Exterior' scores have gradually stabilized over the three waves exc ept for Motorola and Anycall. Motorola has greatly improved the problems related to 'Exterior' since RAZR, a model of superb quality, became its flagship. This means Motorola was able to turn around the situation from the bottom to the top just within a year by improving the exterior of a specific model while the domestic brands kept on with their rankings.
In the case of Anycall, the changes were unstable as the brand found itself in the bottom in the 1st wave, improved in the 2nd wave, but again plummeted to the bottom in this wave. This calls for an urgent task of stabilizing the exterior quality as well as improving it.
2. Handset initial quality - 'Battery/Charger'
In the second problem, the 'Battery/Charger' category, Motorola had the least number of problems with a score of 87PPH and CIS of 80.7, followed by Ever (98 PPH, CIS 90.5) and SKY (102PPH, CIS 93.8). Looking at the changes in competitiveness index among brands over the three waves, Anycall remained stable without seeing a noticeable change while Motorola improved and Pantech & Curitel repeatedly weakened. SKY, having dropped to the lower ranks in the 2nd wave from the middle in the 1st wave, showed a significant improvement in this wave positioning itself in the upper middle part of the rankings.
Overall, there have been no significant changes in the rankings except for SKY and Ever, but the gap among brands has significantly widened. In other words, the range of competitiveness broadened from 95.6 (Motorola) to 105.9 (Pantech & Curitel) in the same period last year to 80.7 (Motorola) to 115.9 (Pantech & Curitel) this year. This may have been caused by Motorola's improvement and Pantech & Curitel's deterioration creating a competitive composition of '1 Strong, 4 Mediocres, and 1 Weak'.
The widening gap among brands in the problems related to 'Battery/Charger' does not seem irrelevant of the changes occurred in the cell phone hardware caused by the latest fad of slim phones and the growth of mobile convergence.
3. Handset initial quality - 'Camera function/performance'
In 'Camera function/performance', Motorola (65PPH, CIS 89.7) ranked the top surpassing Anycall (CIS 91.4 66PPH) by a slim margin of 1 PPH. Ever followed after with 72 PPH (CIS 99.0), and Cyon dropped to the bottom of the rankings with a score of 81 PPH (CIS 111.9).
The changes in the competitiveness index of 'Camera function/performance' over the three waves indicate equalization of brands with the gap among them having significantly narrowed from the same period last year. Anycall stably maintained its leading position with CIS of 91.4, along with Motorola, still the No.1 in the rankings, albeit somewhat weakened (CIS 89.7) compared to the 2nd wave that saw a quantum leap of improvement with a whopping score of 76.3. Ever showed the most significant improvement, coming from CIS of 150.5 in the 1st wave that was 1.5 times higher than the industry average to greatly improved CIS of 105.0 in the 2nd wave and 99.0 in this wave. On the contrary, Cyon, the No.2 in the 1st wave, dropped to the near the bottom in the 2nd wave, and fell even lower to find itself at the bottom of the rankings in this wave.
Since the exterior of the mobile phone is susceptible to problems occurring while in use, it has always been in the interests of both users and makers to improve its quality. Thus, the competitive index scores among brands have always maintained 100 (Industry average) ±10. However, with the fast growing segment of ultra slim phones lately, batteries and chargers have partially changed, inevitably causing the widening gap among brands in the related field (Difference of CIS between BIC and WIC: 9.6→23.0→35.2). On the other hand, the camera function that is now a norm in mobile phone features has stabilized with competitiveness scores leveling out among brands (Difference of CIS between BIC and WIC: 70.2→53.0→22.2).
Quite different from brand value that is accumulated by long-term management, initial quality can reap returns in the short term from the investment made by makers. Even after taking into consideration that Anycall and Motorola have a comparable difference in the number of models launched, still undeniable is the competitive advantage of Motorola in terms of consumer perceived quality. Motorola has focused on quality management on a few number of models in domestic market and has enjoyed the sales success of the few specific models. This is a matter of selecting and focusing. Motorola's case should not be underestimated as a mere success story of a couple of hit products but seen as a reference to give us an idea of what strategies to consider when a domestic maker enters into the foreign market.
Marketing Insight Inc. (Formerly F-inside) has conducted research studies and consultancy services specializing in telecommunications, automobiles, electronic appliances, and government elections. Its main duties include measuring Consumer Perceived Quality (CPQ) and product planning. It has also conducted the periodic large-scale syndicated study in the fields of telecommunications and automobiles.
This Telecom Report is the result of a large-scale syndicated survey on telecommunication services and handsets with a sample size of over 100,000 and which has been conducted twice a year (in March and September) since 2005. All the rights over the content, results, and analysis concerning this study are reserved to Marketing Insight, Inc. No portion of the content may be used for commercial purposes by any means without a written notice from Marketing Insight Inc.
■ Study Method: Email survey
■ Universe: All Nations (including handset users or non-users)
■ Sample Characteristic: Email users over 14
■ Sample Size: 102,000 persons
■ Sample Deviation: ±0.31% at 95% reliability level
■ Study Period: March 7 - 25, 2006 (19 days)
웹사이트: http://www.mktingisht.co.kr
연락처
Marketing Insight 02-543-5294~5
이 보도자료는 Marketing Insight, Inc.가(이) 작성해 뉴스와이어 서비스를 통해 배포한 뉴스입니다.
-
2006년 11월 30일 08:36
-
2006년 11월 23일 08:32