THE EFFECTS OF DEMOGRAPHICAL FACTORS AND BRAND ASSOCIATIONS ON SATISFACTION: UNIVERSITY SAMPLE

Year 2016, Volume: 12 Issue: 30, 193 - 212, 01.12.2016

Gizem Tokmak

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.20183024232

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the effects of demographical factors and brand associations on university satisfaction of the students thought to be the most effective internal customer groups in conveying university image. The population comprises of 1922 students including freshmen and seniors studying at the faculty of economics and business administration of the subject university. In the research, 389 participants were reached via quota sampling method, and multiple linear regression analysis was applied. In conclusion, the brand associations including academicians characteristics, physical features, intangible factors including benefits and university image were found to be effective variables on university satisfaction

Keywords

Brand Associations, Satisfaction, Word of Mouth WOM, University Image

THE EFFECTS OF DEMOGRAPHICAL FACTORS AND BRAND ASSOCIATIONS ON SATISFACTION: UNIVERSITY SAMPLE

Abstract

Bu çalışmada demografik faktörlerin ve marka çağrışım unsurlarının, üniversite imajını iletmede en etkili iç müşteri grubu olduğu düşünülen öğrencilerin üniversite memnuniyeti üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya çıkarmak amaçlanmıştır. Ana kütleyi, söz konusu üniversitenin İ.İ.B.F.’nde dördüncü ve birinci sınıfta okumakta olan 1922 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada kota örnekleme yöntemiyle 389 katılımcı belirlenmiş ve çoklu doğrusal regresyon tekniği kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, akademisyenlerin özellikleri ve fiziksel özellikler gibi marka çağrışım unsurları ile fayda ve üniversite imajı gibi soyut faktörler, üniversite memnuniyeti üzerinde etkili değişkenler olarak bulunmuştur.

Keywords

Marka Çağrışım Unsurları, Memnuniyet, WOM, Üniversite İmajı

References

• Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
• Akar, C. (2012). Üniversite seçimini etkileyen faktörler: İktisadi ve idari bilimler öğrencileri üzerine bir çalışma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Universitesi İİBF Dergisi, 7(1), 97-120.
• Akareem, H. S., & Syed, S. H. (2012). Perception of education quality in private universities of Bangladesh: A study from students’ perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1(22).
• Alwi, S. F., & Philip, J. K. (2014). Projecting corporate brand image and behavioral response in business schools: Cognitive or affective brand attributes?. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2324-2336.
• Andreassen, T., & Lindestad, B. (1998). Customer loyalty and complex services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9, 7-23.
• Baltacı, F., Üngüren, E., Avsallı, H. & Demirel, O.N. (2012). Turizm eğitimi alan öğrencilerin eğitim memnuniyetlerinin ve geleceğe yönelik bakış açılarının belirlemesine yönelik bir araştırma. International Journal of Alanya Faculty of Business, 4(1), 17-25.
• Chen, L. H. (2008). Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for understanding international students’ choice of Canadian universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1(18), 1–33.
• Dinçer, M. K. (2001). İş yaşamında ve özel yaşamda kişisel imaj. İstanbul: Alfa Yayıncılık.
• Grönroos, C. (1988). Service quality: The six criteria of good perceived service quality. Review of Business, 3(9), 10-13.
• Hunt, S. D. (2010). Marketing theory. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
• İslamoğlu, A. H. & Altunışık, R. (2013). Tüketici davranışları. İstanbul: Beta Basım.
• Jiewanto, A., Laurens, C. & Nelloh., L. (2012). Influence of service quality, university image, and student satisfaction toward WOM intention: A case study on universitas Pelita Harapan Surabaya. Social and Behavioral Sciences, (40), 16-23.
• Kalaycı, E. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
• Karahan, K. (2006). Hizmet pazarlaması. İstanbul: Beta Basım.
• Keller, K. L. (2000). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 1(57), 1-22.
• Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management, building, measuring and managing brand equity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Koç, E. (2012). Tüketici davranışı ve pazarlama stratejileri: Global ve yerel yaklaşım. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Marangoz, M., & Biber, L. (2007). Kurumsal imajın ve kurumsal ünün müşteri bağlılığına etkileri. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 2 (8), 173-193.
• Owen, F. K., Kepir, D.D., Özdemir, S., Ulaş, Ö. & Yılmaz, O. (2012). Universite öğrencilerinin bölüm seçme nedenleri. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 8 (3), 135-151.
• Özdamar, K. (2003). Modern bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
• Özgüngör, S. (2009). The relationships between students’ evaluations of teaching behaviors and self efficacy beliefs. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2687-2691.
• Parpala, A., & Ylanne, S. L. (2007). University teachers’ conceptions of good teaching in the units of high-quality education. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 3-4 (33), 355-370.
• Pavlina, K., Zorica M. B. & Pongrac, A. (2011). Student perception of teaching quality in higher education. Social and Behavioral Sciences, (15), 2288-2292.
• Perry, A., & Wisnom, D. (2003). Markanın DNA’sı. (Çev. Z. Yılmaz). İstanbul: MediaCat Yayınları.
• Stuart, H. (1999). Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity Management process. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4 (4), 200-207.
• Sökmen, A. (2011). Öğrenci memnuniyetine yönelik Ankara’daki bir meslek yüksekokulunda araştırma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3 (4), 66-79.
• Şahin, A.E. (2009). Eğitim fakültesinde hizmet kalitesinin eğitim fakültesi öğrenci memnuniyet ölçeği (ef-ömö) ile değerlendirilmesi. H. U. Journal of Education, 37, 106-122.
• Şahin, İ., Zoraloğlu, Y.R.& Fırat, N.Ş. (2011). Üniversite öğrencilerinin yaşam amaçları, eğitsel hedefleri, üniversite öğreniminden beklentileri ve memnuniyet durumları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi [Educational Administration:Theory and Practice], 17 (3), 429-452.
• Tekelioğlu, S., Başer, H., Örtlek, M. & Aydınlı, C. (2012). Uluslararası öğrencilerin ülke ve üniversite seçiminde etkili faktörler: Vakıf üniversitesi örneği. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4 (2), 191-200.
• Tığlı, M. (2003). Kurum imajı kavramı ve sembolik analoji tekniği yoluyla Marmara Üniversitesi’nin kurum imajının belirlenmesine ilişkin bir uygulama. T.C. Marmara Üniversitesi I.I.B.F. Dergisi, 1(18), 245-256.
• Torlak, Ö., Doğan, V. & Özkara, B. Y. (2014). Marka farkındalığı, marka imajı, markadan etkilenme ve markaya güvenin marka bağlılığı üzerindeki görece etkilerinin incelenmesi: Turkcell örneği. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 1(9), 147-161.
• Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2014). Corporate images’ impact on consumers’ product choices: The case of multinational foreign subsidiaries. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2224- 2230.
• Yangın, H.B., & Kırca, N. (2013). Antalya sağlık yüksekokulu hemşirelik öğrencilerinin memnuniyet düzeyleri ve etkileyen faktörler. Gümüşhane University Journal of Health Sciences, 2 (1), 78-94.
• Yeygel, S., & Temel, A. (2006). İşletmelerin kurumsal imajlarının hedef kitlelere iletilmesinde bir araç olarak kurum web siteleri. Ulusal Halkla İlişkiler Sempozyumu, 27-28 Nisan, Kocaeli. APPENDIX I
• Table I: Reliability Analysis for Academic Staffs’ Characteristics Scale (After Omitting
• Item 2, Item 8, Item 19, Item 22, Item 23, and Item 26 From the Scale)
• Cronbach Alpha Coefficient Items Cronbach’s
• Alpha If Items Deleted 0,908
• He/She gives responsibility to the students.
• He/She creates interactive platform during the course.
• He/She gives the course by associating with the reallife.
• He/She gives chance to the students so that they can do brainstorming during the course.
• He/She gives practical information to the students.
• He/She is an inspiration to the students.
• He/She uses different methodsto teach the students.
• He/She is a specialist in his/her department.
• He/She behaves equally to the students.
• He/She has sufficient knowledge about the course main theme.
• He/She responses the questions of the students in a specialistic way.
• He/She clearly defines the objectives of the courses.
• He/She is good at communicating with the students.
• He/She shows respect to the students.
• He/She is punctual.
• He/She gives information about his(her adademic background. 0,913 0,911 0,908 0,907 0,910 0,906 0,912 0,912 Table I continued
• He/She is academically well-qualified.
• He/She effectively presents the course.
• He/She is responsive in giving mark.
• He/She is sensitive to the daily events.
• He/She shares his/her philosophy.
• He/She imposes on his/her philosophy.
• He/She gives information about daily events.
• He/She gives eye-opening information to the students.
• He/She motives students about future.
• He/She pays attention to his/her appearances.
• I can easily communicate with the academic when I need.
• I feel free to ask question to the academic when I do not understand.
• I know that the academic welcome me and show me tolerance when
• I make a mistake. 0,909 0,913 0,905 0,913 0,912
• Table II: Reliability Analysis for Physical Conditions of the University Scale (After
• Omitting Item 1 and Item 13 From the Scale)
• Cronbach Alpha Coefficient Items Cronbach’s
• Alpha If Items Deleted
• The classrooms are crowded.
• The faculty building and the other physical places (toilet, canteen
• etc…) are sufficient.
• The classrooms are well qualified for teaching.
• The modern equipment are used during the class.
• The campus place is sufficient.
• The illumination is sufficiently made in the campus at nights.
• The library of the university is sufficient.
• The gymnasium of the university is sufficient.
• The security services of the university is sufficient.
• The university includes an infirmary that gives services in time that is needed.
• The university includes a psychological counseling and guidance
• room fort he students.
• The cleaning services are regularly being pursued in the university.
• The campus is close to the important centers (such as hospital
• shopping centers, ATM, etc…). 0,733 0,767 0,770 0,762 0,763 0,722 0,741 0,757
• Table III: Reliability Analysis for The Courses’ Characteristics of the University Scale
• Cronbach Alpha Coefficient 0,754 Cronbach’s
• Alpha If Items Deleted 0,609 0,751 0,705
• The course provides opportunity for the students to make implementations.
• The number of subjects within the context of the course is compatible
• with the course hours.
• The course literature is beneficial in terms of intelligibility of the main 0,704 subject.
• Table IV: Reliability Analysis for The Institutional Characteristics of the University Scale
• (After Omitting Item 2,6,7,10,12,13,16,21,22,33)
• Cronbach Alpha Coefficient 0,950 Cronbach’s
• Alpha If Items Deleted
• The ranking of the university across Turkey is good.
• The ranking of the department that I study on across Turkey is good.
• The university environment is compatible with the academic environment.
• The university pursues activities stimulating success of the students
• (such as giving scholarship, giving award, etc…).
• The web site of the university is user-friendly.
• I do not feel difficulty in course taking.
• I have difficulty in using e-campus.
• I can easily access the advisors in course taking week.
• I trust the academic staffs of the university.
• The university management informs the students’ parents about the
• students’ condition.
• I feel free to share my problems with the university management.
• There are social responsibility projects being pursued within the university.
• There are academic conferences being held within the university.
• The student clubs actively work within the university.
• The university image associates with the city image. 0,949 0,948