Transcript Slide 1

THE MARKETING STRATEGY TOWARD INTERNATIONAL
SERVICED SATISFACTION STANDARD FOR TRAVELERS IN
GAS STATION ROADSIDE REST AREA
ANUCHA KUNTRARADUSADEE
 EDUCATION BACKGROUND
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER
RAJCHAMAKALA UNIVERSITY
 MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
KHONKAEN UNIVERSITY
PRESENT
 DBA MARKETING (CANDIDATE)
SIAM UNIVERSITY
 OCCUPATION
 PETRONAS RETAIL (THAILAND) CO.,LTD.
PROJECT MANAGER
 Garder and Bosonetto. (2002). Quantify Roadside Rest Area Usage in NETC. University of
Maine, Orono, ME.
 Blomquite and Carson. (1999). An Investigation of the Needs and Expectations of Rest Area
Users in Montana. National Research Council, Washington D.C.
 Horn and Tentacostle. (1999). Rest Area Forum: Summary of Proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia.
 FHWA.(1996). Commercial Driver Rest Area & Parking Requirements: Making Space for Safety
Final Report. Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.
 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.
 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 APRIL-JULY 2006
CONCEPTUAL FRAMWORK AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
H1
Marketing Strategy
1. Product
2. Price
3. Place
4. Promotion
5. People
6. Process
7. Physical evidence
H6
H2
H4
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
H3
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
H5
Behavioral Response
Approach-Avoidance
Responses
Merhrabian and Russell 1974
METHOD AND PROCEDURES
Petronas,
2.0%
JET, 6.8%
Population
Travelers
Others,
4.4%
PTT, 32.7%
Caltex, 8.1%
Bangchak,
12.4%
Shell, 16.0%
Esso, 17.6%
991
(991 x 400)/3,065 = 130
379
(379 x 400)/3,065 = 50
383
895
280
Located on Upcountry
3,065 Stations
Taro Yamane
400
(383 x 400)/3,065 = 50
(895 x 400)/3,065 = 115
Department of Energy Business, June 2007
(280 x 400)/3,065 = 35
94
(94 x 400)/3,065 = 15
43
(43 x 400)/3,065 = 5
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
1 FUEL
2 COVENIENCE STORE
3 TOILET
1
PAHOLYOTHIN
5
2
MITAPHAP
ASIA
3
RAMA 2
6
SUKHUMVIT
+
=
4
PETCHKASEM
June – October 2008
400
Northern = 81 Sets
Central = 37 Sets
Western = 54 Sets
= 25
= 10
= 10
= 25
=8
=2
QUESTIONNAIRE COLLECTED
North Eastern = 106 Sets
=1
= 10
=5
=5
= 10
=3
=3
=1
= 20
= 10
=5
= 10
=5
=3
=1
= 30
= 10
= 10
= 45
=8
=2
=1
Eastern = 61 Sets
400 Sets
Southern = 61 ชุด
= 20
=5
= 10
= 15
=5
=5
=1
= 25
= 10
= 10
= 10
=6
=0
=0
MEASURES
Questionnaire
1. Marketing Strategy 52 Clauses : Likert 5 Scale
156 Clauses
IOC >0.50
α = 0.894
2. Purchase Decision under Utilities Result 42 Clauses :
Likert 5 Scale
3. Satisfaction after Service’s Delivery 51 Clauses : Likert 5
Scale
4. Personal Factor 11 Clauses : Checklist
Data Analysis
1. Stability
SPSS 14
Reliability
2. Consistency
Model
1. Good-of-Fit Indices for the
proposed Structural
Equation Model
2. Testifying Hypothesis
AMOS 6
Measurement Model
Findings
Conclusion
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
1
Traveler’s Profile
Occupation
Employee
62%
Male
56.8%
Education
B. Degree 68%
Travel Colleague
Female 59%
Travel Status
Driver 66%
MEASUREMENT MODEL
gender age status occu income edu object group admin vehicle travel
1
1
product
e1
sproduct
1
price
e2
1
place
e3
1
estrategy
esatisfy
1
1
1
promo
e4
strategy
satisfy
1
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
< 0.05
0.015
e13
Statistics Value
1
sprice
e14
1
splace
spromo
speople
1
e15
e16
e17
1
process
sprocess e18
1
e7
Chi-Square
1
people
e6
Criterion
1
1
e5
Index
1
physic
sphysic
e19
edecision
1
decision
1
pattern quality volumeconven fast
1
e8
1 1
e9
e10
1
e11
1
e12
Conceptual Model
Model fit statistics collectively demonstrate
that the research model fits that data well
MEASUREMENT MODEL
Confirmatory Factor Analysis : CFA
Factor Loading
Item
gender age status occu income edu object group admin vehicle travel
1
1
product
e1
sproduct
1
price
e2
1
place
e3
1
estrategy
esatisfy
1
1
1
promo
e4
satisfy
1
speople
1
e15
e16
e17
1
process
sprocess e18
1
e7
splace
spromo
1
people
e6
e14
1
1
strategy
1
e5
e13
1
sprice
1
physic
sphysic
edecision
1
decision
1
pattern quality volumeconven fast
1 1
1
e8
e9
e10
1
e11
1
e12
Conceptual Model
e19
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
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
.52
-.02 .14
.00 .00 .15
-.19 .07 -.05 -.08
-.10 .00 .02 -.04 .22
-.15 -.12 .12 -.11 .09 -.07
.17 -.11 -.08 .00 -.01 .09 -.13
-.05 .59 -.03 .15 .07 -.10 -.13 -.34
.11
.31 -.06 .36 .11 -.01 .17 .04 -.07 .07
.16 .01
.46 .03 -.05 .11 .21 .24 -.01 .03 .21 -.10
Structural Equation Modeling : SEM
.11
gender age status occu income edu object group adminvehicle travel
.20.12
.11
.43
-.02
.16
-.23-.14
.03
.18
.16*
-.25
-.26-.08
-.07
.02
.16-.01-.02.07
-.10
-.03.00-.01
.22
.05
-.06
-.15*
.01
14*.12.00
.14*.03-.23*
.25
.36.05.01-.01.09
-.37
.08 -.02
-.14
.07
-.29
-.23
-.30
.36
e1
-.05
-.53
-.55
-.76.01
-.12.56
sproduct
.62
.56
e2
price .60
.39 estrategy
e3
.63
place
.41
.75
e4
e5
e6
e7
.63
.64
.36
.61
people
.35
.87
.17
promo strategy
-.02
.00
speople
.11 .40
.45
e17
sprocess
e18
sphysic
e19
.33
.08*
-.21
-.12
= - 0.063 gender + 0.011age - 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; R2 = 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; R2 = 0.144 (14.4%)
edecision
-.03
-.16
-.09
-.16
.22
.14
-.17
.73 sprice e14
.54
.81
.73
.46 splace e15
.66
-.32
.81
satisfy spromo
.81 .69 e16
physic
.28*
e13
esatisfy
-.14
.11
.46*
.12-.04.06
.13*-.09
-.11.12
.00-.06
-.02-.01
-.09
process .18
.60
.07
Marketing strategy
.54
product
.15
-.10
-.21
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
.09
.14
.03
decision
.36.32
.84.40
.00 .00 .39
.08 .70
.17
patternqualityvolumeconven fast
e8
e9
e10
e11
e12
Full Structure Equation Modeling
.17
.09
Satisfaction after services’ delivery
= -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 – 0.012vehicle + 0.088 travel + 0.462*
strategy + 0.083* decision; R2 = 0.455 (45.5%)
CONCLUSION
Parsimonious Model
Personal Factor
1. Status
2. Objective of travel
3. Nationality of gas station
Path Coefficient = 0.153*, 0.140*, and 0.232 respectively
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.
R2
45.5%
(0.455x100)
Path Coefficient =
0.083*
R2>0.40 Saris & Strenkhorst, 1984
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 79th 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 7th 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 79th 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