Скачать презентацию THE MARKETING STRATEGY TOWARD INTERNATIONAL SERVICED SATISFACTION STANDARD Скачать презентацию THE MARKETING STRATEGY TOWARD INTERNATIONAL SERVICED SATISFACTION STANDARD

8cdd1b7f615c40cba8a4f8aa927e246f.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 17

THE MARKETING STRATEGY TOWARD INTERNATIONAL SERVICED SATISFACTION STANDARD FOR TRAVELERS IN GAS STATION ROADSIDE THE MARKETING STRATEGY TOWARD INTERNATIONAL SERVICED SATISFACTION STANDARD FOR TRAVELERS IN GAS STATION ROADSIDE REST AREA ANUCHA KUNTRARADUSADEE

q EDUCATION BACKGROUND üINDUSTRIAL ENGINEER RAJCHAMAKALA UNIVERSITY ü MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION KHONKAEN UNIVERSITY q EDUCATION BACKGROUND üINDUSTRIAL ENGINEER RAJCHAMAKALA UNIVERSITY ü MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION KHONKAEN UNIVERSITY PRESENT ü DBA MARKETING (CANDIDATE) SIAM UNIVERSITY q OCCUPATION ü PETRONAS RETAIL (THAILAND) CO. , LTD. PROJECT MANAGER

v Garder and Bosonetto. (2002). Quantify Roadside Rest Area Usage in NETC. University of v Garder and Bosonetto. (2002). Quantify Roadside Rest Area Usage in NETC. University of Maine, Orono, ME. v Blomquite and Carson. (1999). An Investigation of the Needs and Expectations of Rest Area Users in Montana. National Research Council, Washington D. C. v Horn and Tentacostle. (1999). Rest Area Forum: Summary of Proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia. v FHWA. (1996). Commercial Driver Rest Area & Parking Requirements: Making Space for Safety Final Report. Federal Highway Administration, Washington D. C. v AASHTO. (1999). A Guide for Development of Rest Area on Major Arterials and Freeways-Draft. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D. C. v Kimberlee Langoft. (1996). Investigate the Public’s Perception of Highway Rest Area. Oregon Survey Research Laboratory University of Oregon.

FY 2006 REST AREA CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RESULTS 32 REST AREAS STATEWIDE GOOD TO GREAT FY 2006 REST AREA CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RESULTS 32 REST AREAS STATEWIDE GOOD TO GREAT APRIL-JULY 2006

CONCEPTUAL FRAMWORK AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS H 1 Marketing Strategy 1. Product 2. Price 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMWORK AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS H 1 Marketing Strategy 1. Product 2. Price 3. Place 4. Promotion 5. People 6. Process 7. Physical evidence H 6 H 2 H 4 Stimulus The physical Environment Personal Factor 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Status 4. Occupation 5. Average income per month 6. Education 7. Objective of travel 8. Travel colleague 9. Nationality of gas station 10. Type of vehicle 11. Status of travel Purchase Decision under Utilities Result 1. Products and services 2. Acceptance 3. Sufficiency 4. Accessibility 5. Appropriateness Oganism Emotional Response H 3 Satisfaction 1. Product of service 2. Price of service 3. Place of service 4. Promotion of service 5. People of service 6. Process of service 7. Physical evidence of service H 5 Behavioral Response Approach-Avoidance Responses Merhrabian and Russell 1974

METHOD AND PROCEDURES Populatio n 99 1 37 9 38 3 89 5 28 METHOD AND PROCEDURES Populatio n 99 1 37 9 38 3 89 5 28 0 94 43 Travelers Located on Upcountry 3, 065 Department of Energy Stations Business, June 2007 Taro Yamane 40 0 (991 x 400)/3, 065 = 130 (379 x 400)/3, 065 = 50 (383 x 400)/3, 065 = 50 (895 x 400)/3, 065 = 115 (280 x 400)/3, 065 = 35 (94 x 400)/3, 065 = 15 (43 x 400)/3, 065 =5

SAMPLING PROCEDURES 1 FUEL 2 COVENIENCE STORE 3 TOILET 1 PAHOLYOT HIN 5 2 SAMPLING PROCEDURES 1 FUEL 2 COVENIENCE STORE 3 TOILET 1 PAHOLYOT HIN 5 2 ASIA 3 RAMA 2 6 MITAP HAP SUKHUM VIT + = 4 PETCHKAS EM June – October 2008 40 0

Northern = 81 Sets Central = 37 Sets Western = 54 Sets = 25 Northern = 81 Sets Central = 37 Sets Western = 54 Sets = 25 = 10 = 25 =8 =2 QUESTIONNAIRE COLLECTED North Eastern = 106 Sets =1 = 10 =5 =5 = 10 =3 =3 =1 = 20 = 10 =5 =3 =1 = 30 = 10 = 45 =8 =2 =1 Eastern = 61 Sets 400 Sets Southern = 61 ชด = 20 =5 = 10 = 15 =5 =5 =1 = 25 = 10 =6 =0 =0

MEASURES Questionnaire 1. Marketing Strategy 52 Clauses : Likert 5 Scale 156 Clauses IOC MEASURES Questionnaire 1. Marketing Strategy 52 Clauses : Likert 5 Scale 156 Clauses IOC >0. 50 2. Purchase Decision under Utilities Result 42 Clauses : Likert 5 Scale α = 0. 894 3. Satisfaction after Service’s Delivery 51 Clauses : Likert 5 Scale 4. Personal Factor 11 Clauses : Checklist Data Analysis 1. Stability Reliability Model SPSS 14 2. Consistency 1. Good-of-Fit Indices for the proposed Structural Equation Model 2. Testifying Hypothesis AMOS 6

Measurement Model Findings Conclusion Measurement Model Findings Conclusion

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 1 Traveler’s Profile Marriage Male Age 31 -50 Year 53% 68% 56. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 1 Traveler’s Profile Marriage Male Age 31 -50 Year 53% 68% 56. 8% Occupation Employee 62% Monthly Income Travel Objective Education > 30, 000 บาท Degree 68% Tourism 48. 5% B. 52% Vehicle Travel Status Nationality Travel Colleague Driver 66% Personal car 58. 5% Unbiased 96% Female 59%

MEASUREMENT MODEL Index Chi-Square P ≥ 0. 05 0. 165 CMIN/DF Closed to 1 MEASUREMENT MODEL Index Chi-Square P ≥ 0. 05 0. 165 CMIN/DF Closed to 1 1. 085 GFI ≥ 0. 90 0. 955 AGFI ≥ 0. 90 0. 921 NFI ≥ 0. 90 0. 927 IFI ≥ 0. 90 0. 944 CFI ≥ 0. 90 0. 994 RMR < 0. 05 0. 012 RMSEA Conceptual Model Criterion Statistics Value < 0. 05 0. 015 Model fit statistics collectively demonstrate that the research model fits that data well

MEASUREMENT MODEL Confirmatory Factor Analysis : CFA Factor Loading Item Product Price Place Promotion MEASUREMENT MODEL Confirmatory Factor Analysis : CFA Factor Loading Item Product Price Place Promotion People Process Physical evidence Products and services Acceptance Sufficiency Accessibility Appropriateness Product of service Price of service Place of service Promotion of service People of service Process of service Physical evidence of service Conceptual Model Marketing Strategy Purchase Decision Satisfaction 0. 602 0. 751 0. 627 0. 632 0. 637 0. 611 0. 875 0. 355 0. 318 0. 388 0. 838 0. 397 0. 727 0. 807 0. 731 0. 811 0. 808 0. 404 0. 454 If factor loading > 0. 30 mean model is validity

STRUCTURAL MODEL Structural Equation Modeling : SEM Chi-square = 282. 232, df = 263, STRUCTURAL MODEL Structural Equation Modeling : SEM Chi-square = 282. 232, df = 263, p-value = 0. 165, CMIN/DF = 1. 085, GFI = 0. 955, NFI = 0. 927, CFI = 0. 994, RMSEA = 0. 015, RMR = 0. 012, *p <0. 05 Marketing strategy = - 0. 063 gender + 0. 011 age - 0. 153* status + 0. 142* occu + 0. 123 income + 0. 00 edu + 0. 140* object + 0. 027 colleag – 0. 232* nation + 0. 023 vehicle - 0. 105 travel; R 2 = 0. 169 (16. 9%) Purchase decision under utilities result = 0. 115 gender – 0. 037 age + 0. 057 status + 0. 126* occu – 0. 114 income + 0. 125 edu – 0. 094 object + 0. 005 colleag – 0. 056 nation - 0. 020 vehicle -0. 005 travel + 0. 277* strategy; R 2 = 0. 144 (14. 4%) Satisfaction after services’ delivery Full Structure Equation Modeling = -0. 034 gender +0. 000 age – 0. 015 status + 0. 158* occu – 0. 012 income - 0. 020 edu + 0. 073 object + 0. 050 group + 0. 014 admin – 0. 012 vehicle + 0. 088 travel + 0. 462* strategy + 0. 083* decision; R 2 = 0. 455 (45. 5%)

CONCLUSION Parsimonious Model Path Coefficient = 0. 153*, 0. 140*, and 0. 232 respectively CONCLUSION Parsimonious Model Path Coefficient = 0. 153*, 0. 140*, and 0. 232 respectively Personal Factor 1. Status 2. Objective of travel 3. Nationality of gas station 4. Occupation Path Coefficient = 0. 158* Path Coefficient = 0. 142* Marketing Strategy 1. Product 2. Price 3. Place 4. Promotion 5. People 6. Process 7. Physical evidence Path Coefficient = 0. 277* Path Coefficient = 0. 462* Path Coefficient = 0. 126* Purchase Decision under Utilities Result 1. Products and services 2. Acceptance 3. Sufficiency 4. Accessibility 5. Appropriateness Satisfaction after Services’ Delivery 1. Product of service 2. Price of service 3. Place of service 4. Promotion of service 5. People of service 6. Process of service 7. Physical evidence of service Marketing strategy quite significant related to international serviced satisfaction standard in gas station roadside rest area. R 2 45. 5% (0. 455 x 100) Path Coefficient = 0. 083* R 2>0. 40 Saris & Strenkhorst, 1984

BIBLIOGRAPHY AASHTO. (1999). A Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and BIBLIOGRAPHY AASHTO. (1999). A Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways-Draft. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D. C. Blomquist, D. and Carson, J. L. (1999). An Investigation of the Needs and Expectations of Rest Area Users in Montana. Transportation Research Board 79 th Annual Meeting Preprint CD-ROM, National Research Council, Washington D. C. FHWA. (1996). Commercial Driver Rest Area & Parking Requirements: Making Space for Safety Final Report. Federal Highway Administration, Washington D. C. Garder, Per. (1999). Quantifying Roadside Rest Area Usage. Proposal to NETC. University of Maine, Orono, ME. Haworth, N. L. (1998). Fatigue and fatigue research: The Australian experience paper presented to 7 th Biennial Australasian Traffic Education Conference, Speed, Alcohol, Fatigue, Effects, Brisbane. Michael, A. Perfater. (1988). Operation and Motorist Usage of Interstate Rest Areas and Welcome Centers in Virginia, Transportation Research Record, Virginia Transportation Research Council. Taylor, William, C. and Sung, Nakmoon. (1998). A Study of Highway Rest Areas and Fatigue Related Truck Crashes. Transportation Research Board 79 th Annual Meeting Preprint CD-ROM, National Research Council, Washington D. C. Tyrrell, Timothy J. (1999). Rhode Island Travel and Tourism Research Report v. 16, #1. Office of Travel, Tourism and Recreation, Department of Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island.

THANK YOU THANK YOU