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 AlMahmood. 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 Purpose of the study 1.2 Problem Statement 1.3 Research timeline 1.4 Limitations of the study 2.0 Review of related literature 2.1 Definition of perceived value 2.2 Definition of brand preference 2.3 Definition of customer satisfaction 2.4 Definition of repurchase intention 2.5 Relationship between perceived value and repurchase intention 2.6 Relationship between brand preference and repurchase intention 2.7 Relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention 3.0 Operational Definition 3.1 Research Questions 3.2 Research Hypothesis 3.3 Conceptual Framework 4.0 Research Methodology 4.1 Research design 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 7 7 10 11 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 17

4.2 Sampling method 4.3 Survey instrument 4.4 Data collection procedure 4.5 Data analysis 5.0 Findings from questionnaires 5.1 Reliability and Descriptive statistics of the Instruments 5.2 Correlation Analysis 5.3 Stepwise Regression Analysis 6.0 Assessment of research hypothesis 7.0 Recommendation 8.0 Conclusion References Appendices

17 18 18 19 19 19 21 22 24 25 26 27 33

LIST OF TABLES
Page 1. Operational Definition of Measured Variables 2. Descriptive statistics, and Reliability Coefficient of Measured Variables 3. Correlation Matrix for Measured Variables 4. Stepwise regression on repurchase intention 15 20 22 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 2006 2006 Jun July July Research Proposal Writing. Literature Review. Development of Conceptual Framework.

2006 2006 2006 2006

July Aug Aug Aug

Data Collection Procedure. Data Analysis and interpretation of the findings. Submission of draft copy. 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 valuepercept 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 Perceived value Operational Definitions 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

Perceived Value

Brand Preference

Repurchase Intention

Customer Satisfaction

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

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 Brand Preference Customer Satisfaction Repurchase Intention 4 3 4 4 0.75 0.70 0.69 0.58 4.33 4.39 4.23 4.48 0.55 0.58 0.64 0.46

Note: n=93 For the early stages of the any research, Nunnally (1978) suggested that the reliability of 0.500.60 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 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.7 0.7 to 0.9 0.9 to 1.0

Very weak, negligible Weak, low Moderate Strong, high marked 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 Per_Value Bra_Preference Cus_satis Repurchase_inten Note: **p <.01. Bra_Preference .58** Cus_satis .31** .50** Repurchase_ inten .47** .53** .50**

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

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 R2 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 Step 1 Brand Preference Step 2 Brand Preference Customer Satisfaction Step 3 Brand Preference Customer Satisfaction .197 .220 .088 .068 .248* .306** .303 .226 .077 .070 .382*** .314** .402 .038 .428 .070 .539*** .364 .073 B SEB R2 .291 R2

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, 134. 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, 197334. 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, 8590. 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 (2nd 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_______________________________________________________ (If others, please specify)

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.

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. 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 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. 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 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 Cases Valid Excluded (a) Total 93 0 93 % 100.0 .0 100.0

a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .753

N of Items 4

Reliability of Brand Preference

Case Processing Summary N Cases Valid Excluded (a) Total 93 0 % 100.0 .0

93 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .706

N of Items 3

Reliability of customer satisfaction

Case Processing Summary N Cases Valid Excluded (a) 93 0 % 100.0 .0

93 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Total

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .698

N of Items 4

Reliability of repurchase intention

Case Processing Summary N Cases Valid Excluded (a) Total 93 0 % 100.0 .0

93 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .588

N of Items 3

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

Correlations Bra_prefere nce .580(**) .000 93 1 . 93 .501(**) .000 93 .539(**) .000 93

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

Cus_satis .317(**) .002 93 .501(**) .000 93 1 . 93 .505(**) .000 93

repur_inten .478(**) .000 93 .539(**) .000 93 .505(**) .000 93 1 . 93

Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(a) Variables Entered Variables Removed

Model 1

Method Stepwise (Criteria: Probability -of-F-toenter <= .050, Probability -of-F-toremove >= .100).

Bra_prefere nce

2 Stepwise (Criteria: Probability -of-F-toenter <= .050, Probability -of-F-toremove >= .100).

Cus_satis

3 Stepwise (Criteria: Probability -of-F-toenter <= .050, Probability -of-F-toremove >= .100).

Per_value

a Dependent Variable: repur_inten

Model Summary Adjusted R Square .283 .350 Std. Error of the Estimate .39391 .37489

Model 1 2 3

R .539(a) .604(b)

R Square .291 .364

.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) Sum of Squares Regressio n Residual Total 2 Regressio n Residual Total 3 Regressio n Residual Total 5.782 14.120 19.902 7.253 12.649 19.902 7.992 11.910 19.902

Model 1

df 1 91 92 2 90 92 3 89 92

Mean Square 5.782 .155

F 37.263

Sig. .000(a)

3.626 .141

25.803

.000(b)

2.664 .134

19.909

.000(c)

a b c d

Predictors: (Constant), Bra_preference Predictors: (Constant), Bra_preference, Cus_satis Predictors: (Constant), Bra_preference, Cus_satis, Per_value Dependent Variable: repur_inten

Coefficients(a) Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 B 2.607 .428 2.198 .303 .226 1.822 .197 .220 .200 Std. Error .311 .070 .322 .077 .070 .352 .088 .068 .085 .248 .306 .237 .382 .314 Standardized Coefficients Beta .539 t 8.387 6.104 6.836 3.929 3.235 5.171 2.251 3.225 2.351 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .027 .002 .021

(Constant) Bra_prefere nce (Constant) Bra_prefere nce Cus_satis (Constant) Bra_prefere nce Cus_satis Per_value

a Dependent Variable: repur_inten

Excluded Variables(c) Collinearity Statistics Model 1 Beta In t Sig. Partial Correlation .241 .323 .242 Tolerance .664 .749 .663

Per_valu .249(a) 2.354 .021 e Cus_sati .314(a) 3.235 .002 s 2 Per_valu .237(b) 2.351 .021 e a Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Bra_preference b Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Bra_preference, Cus_satis c Dependent Variable: repur_inten