Influence of Smartphone Attributes on Student's Buying Decision in Lagos State Tetiary Institutions

70-81

Influence Of Smartphone Attributes On Student’s Buying Decision In Lagos State Tetiary Institutions

Patrick Kunle A Ladipo 1, Mufutau Akanbi Awoniyi 2, Olushola Solomon Akeke 1* 1Department of Business Administration, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria 2Department of Marketing, , Lagos State University, Ojo, Nigeria *[email protected]

Abstract The study was carried out to evaluate the influence of smartphone attributes on student’s buying decision in Lagos State Tertiary Institutions. Research design adopted was purely descriptive, employing cross sectional survey method in data collection. Data for the study were generated through the use of structured questionnaire and administered to a sample of 362 out of 3,792 students in selected tertiary institutions in Lagos State. Data collected were analyzed using Multiple Regression Analysis. The results showed that all smartphone attributes considered in the study were found to be positively and significantly related to student’s buying decision. Specifically, technology attribute has highest impact on student’s buying decisions, followed by application and price attributes. The study concluded that technology, application and price are considered the most top three attributes that significantly influenced student’s buying decision of Smartphone. It was recommended that firms should focus on improving their technology in other to bring about innovative features and application, and more importantly adopt variety of price strategies while not neglecting the image and design attributes, as these were regarded as secondary attributes in determining consumers’ choice of Smartphone.

Keywords: Buying Decision, Smartphone Attributes https://doi.org/10.26905/jmdk.v6i1.1938

INTRODUCTION developing economies has greatly The survival and growth of revolutionized the thinking and life-style of organizations today depends on the extent to students in tertiary institutions. Since the which it is able to provide products and emergence of smartphone in Nigeria in the services that satisfy its numerous customers. late 1990’s, same has been found to have Customers will feel satisfied with products positively impacted the social, academic and that possess the requirements that lead to economic life’s of students in higher informed decision to make purchases one institutions and by extension increasing their hand and if they are able to perform to knowledge globally and commitment to a expectations. On the other hand, this of serious academic pursuit based on course, the reason why Malasi (2012) argued smartphone attributes. (Mojaye, 2015). that products and brand attributes are The various and innumerable benefits significantly important to consumers when of smartphones have accordingly made the making their purchasing decision. Thus, the product virtually indispensable amongst upsurge in the availability of smartphone in students resulting in technological

orientation with attendants improved life Cheung, 2016; Mohan, 2014 & Tan, Yeh, style. (Lau, Lam & Cheung, 2016 & Mohan, Chen, Lin & Kuo (2015). 2014). Hence, Tan, Yeh, Chen, Lin and Kuo The broad objective the study seeks to (2015) maintained in their studies that achieve is to evaluate the influence of smartphone attributes will include the smartphone attributes on student’s buying following important features: Price related decision in Lagos State Tertiary Institutions. features, technology related features, design However, the following under listed are the related features, application related features specific objectives of the study: 1) to and image related features. Malasi (2014) determine the influence of price related further posited that firms work towards attributes on student’s buying decisions of satisfying and meeting consumer’s need Smartphones, 2) to investigate the influence through its various products of technology related attributes on student’s attributes/features. More so, Lay-Yee, Kok- buying decisions of Smartphones, 3) to Siew and Yin-Fah (2013), confirms that examine the influence of design related smartphone features are merely more than attributes on student’s buying decisions of just making phone calls and text messages, Smartphones, 4) to identify the influence of but its ability to have high speed internet application related attributes on student’s accessibility, digital media and multimedia buying decisions of Smartphones, 5) to features such as videos, chatting, music and determine the influence of image related picture. More so, to be able to make use of attributes on student’s buying decisions of small computer programs like installation Smartphones. Apps, etc. It is therefore very important for firms/marketers to anticipate, discover and Literature Review identify the influential factors to deal with changing customer needs, taste and Smartphone preference and the intense competition in the Attributes Student’s smartphone market. (Khan & Rohi, 2013). • Price related Buying Despite the pervasiveness of feature Decision smartphone penetration in Nigeria, studies • Technology Perceptio are very few and inadequate for related feature • Evaluation • Design related Attitudes understanding of smartphone attributes that of feature alternatives influences buying decisions and most • Application • Purchase especially among students in Nigeria. This related feature decision. study is therefore intended to understand the • Image related influence of smartphone attributes on feature student’s buying decision. Although, many researches and studies have been Figure 1. Conceptual model of the study preliminarily carried out on factors that Source: Modified from (Kotler & affect consumer choice of mobile phones. Armstrong, 2012). (Yeh, Chen, Lin & Kuo, 2015; Mokhlis & Yaakop, 2012; Sata, 2013; Malasi, 2012; Why do we buy things?, how do we Oghojafor, Ladipo & Rahim, 2012). decide to buy what we already bought ?, how However, these studies have not duly do we know where and when to buy these captured recent development in modern products ?. These are questions we do often technology. ask ourselves. Hence, marketing Thus, smartphone is importantly professionals are curious to knowing the viewed as indispensable product whose answers to these resounding questions. It is performance function are judged based on because, if they can get answers to these such attributes such as technology, price, questions, then they will have better chance design, image and application. (Lau, Lam &

of creating and communicating products to In today’s competitive market, the potential buyers. marketers are looking towards building a However, the decision consumer long term profitable business relationships makes while buying product is the focal with the customer. Because consumers use point marketers try to understudy, because product attributes to evaluate a product in consumers make different types of decisions relation to the benefits they seek before in everyday life. And in other to withstand intending to purchase the product. the competitive environment, it is important Oghojafor, Ladipo & Rahim, 2012). for firms to exercise much effort on (Shaharudin, Hassan, Mansor, Elias, Harun researching consumer buying behavior and and Aziz (2010) also reported According to obtain detailed information on what Kotler and Armstrong (2012) that marketing consumers’ purchase, where they purchase, has gone through series and stages of when they make their purchases and why marketing evolution. That is, from the they purchase. (Sabnam, 2016). production concept to marketing and societal A buyer will usually pass through five concept. In marketing concept, the different stages of problem recognition, achievement of the overall organization information search, evaluation of goals depends on the extent of its customer alternatives, purchase decision and post satisfaction and how best the company purchase decision in other to reach his/her delivers satisfactions better than its buying decision. That is, evaluate his/her competing counterparts. From the marketing needs, choose the best one according to point of view, competitive advantage can be his/her need and available resources and achieved through a series of intermediate purchase it. But for the purpose of this study, objectives such as offering a distinctive it is assumed that students have passed product attributes. Furthermore, to increase through the first and second stage of the the brand loyal customer base, it is suggested decision process by recognizing the need for that an organization needs to create using a smartphone, and are also well awareness and communicate the benefits of informed about this product. Hence, the these attributes. students is left with the third and fourth stage Smartphone is an electronic device that of the decision process by evaluating the provides varieties of functions and usage smartphone attributes based on their with ease. Smartphone is a mobile device perception and attitudes towards the product, which is more than merely making and and thereafter make purchases. receiving phone calls, text messages, and This therefore encourages marketers in the voice mail. The basic feature of a smartphone industry to rather focus on the Smartphone is the ability to have access to evaluation of alternatives, and purchase the internet and also to be able to access decision. digital media such as picture, music and videos. Also, Smartphone needs to have the Smartphone Attributes ability to make use of small computer Buyers do not acquire products for the programs called applications or apps (Karen, sake of the products, but for the Han & Benjamin, 2013). utility/satisfaction provided by Attributes on the other hand, according characteristics and functionality of the to Oghojafor, Ladipo and Rahim (2012) in product’s attributes. (Lancaster, 1966, Peter and Olsen (1994) and Aaker, Batra and Zhang, Rau & Zhou, 2015). However, many Myers (1992) categorized attributes into of the product characteristics that are concrete attributes and abstract attributes. A important from the point of view of concrete attributes can be referred to as consumers as well as designers are neither physical attributes because of its objective physical nor objective. and tangible characteristics which can be assessed by using criteria such as colour and

shape. While an abstract attributes is of a product is what the company gets back subjective and intangible, they cannot be in return for all the effort that is put into easily measured and come inform of the production and marketing of the product. product design, technology and operating Therefore, we can rightly say that price is an system. important attributes that enhances product Thus, smartphone attributes will quality when other attributes available are include features such as application, high limited. (Dodds & Monroe, 1985). Jacoby gigabytes of storage, large screen and and Olson (1977) also dichotomized price powerful processor. However, attributes can into two: - Objective price (the actual price also come inform of touch screen, camera that is placed on a product) and perceived resolution functionality, WiFi, high price (this is an encoded and assumed price resolution display, e.t.c. of the consumer). Price no doubt influences Romariuk and Sharp (2003) thereby, evaluation and purchase decision. suggested that firms should focus more on how many attributes/features the smartphone Technology Related Attributes should be associated with. Which Tan, et al. Technology Has Revolutionalized The (2015) maintained that smartphone attributes Way and how we communicate with will include the following important features: ourselves and even with ease. Seiler and Price, technology, design, application and beall (2005) states that technology has image related attributes. advanced so quickly. Digital cameras allow them to understand and share pictures of Price Related Attributes with others, members of the family and Park, Wiriady, Surya and Putri (2014) special events with friends all over the quoting Mokhlis and Yaakop (2012) that world. Technology plays an important and “Price has been noted to being a critical powerful role in human lives. It has an factor influencing student’s buying decisions impact on society communication of smartphones product”. Dziwornu (2013) style/system, the interactions, the cross further revealed that the buying decision of fertilization of ideas, learning and listening. students purchasing mobile phone was However, studies have shown how mostly affected by price, as they are likely to technology attributes influences students associate the price charged in relation with buying decisions of evaluation and the product quality. However in similar vein, purchases. (Sata, 2013; Park, Wiriady, Surya studies have shown how prices affect & Putri, 2014 & Mokhlis & yaakop, 2012). smartphone purchases. (Sata, 2013; Park, Thus, it is the operating system (OS), Wiriady, Surya & Putri, 2014 & Mokhlis & availability of near field communication yaakop, 2012). Malasi (2012) asserted that (NFC), data transmission method such as consumers will gladly buy products that have bluetooth, phone speed, ROM and storage lower prices. Therefore, it can be rightly capacity. In view of this, technology no assumed that there is relationship between doubt influences student’s evaluation and price and student’s decisions of smartphones, purchase decisions. particularly when affordability is considered According to Tan et al. (2015) Design Related Attributes Investigated that price is influenced by Another way to add customer value is fashion and values which in turn affects the through product design and style. Some of smartphone Apps uni-directionally. Hence, the previous studies have mentioned that customers do not view price in isolation physical appearances of the mobile phones, when assessing whether the Smartphone is including size, color, design, weight, and worth its value. Price is the odd-one of the keyboard have major impacts on final elements in marketing mix, because it is the purchase decision for mobile phone. (Sata, revenue generator. (Jobber, 2004). The price 2013; Tan, Yeh, Chen, Lin & Kuo, 2015 &

Mokhlis & yaakop, 2012). Research Wikipedia, YouTube, Face book and other conducted by Yang, He, and Lee (2007) social networking Apps. In view of this, found out that Chinese counterparts intend application no doubt influences student’s more to impress themselves and others with evaluation and purchase decisions. their mobile phones’ fancy design and appearance. Image Related Features Companies however develop This is the brand, brand name, fashion reputations for outstanding style and design. or trendy to use. Brand name is another Kotler et al (2002) asserted that design is a factor that influences students' evaluation wilder and broader concept than style and and buying decision in the mobile phone that style simply describes the appearance of markets. Research conducted by Karjaluoto, a product. Because, design will offer one of Karvonen, Kesti, Koivumak, Pakola, Ristok the most potent tools for differentiating and and Salo (2005) found out that brand is one repositioning product of all kinds. Therefore, of the most influential factors that affect the good design in Smartphone will create and purchase of mobile phone. In addition, they attract attention, improve product also found out that students rarely change performance, cut production costs and give their mobile phone brand due to the fact that the product a strong competitive advantage it is much easier to stay with the same brand in higher institutions and most especially in with familiar-user interface and menus. Lagos state. Smartphone attributes come Thus, it is hypothesized that image affect inform of application, high gigabytes of consumers' evaluation and purchase decision. storage, large screen (width and touch Although firms provide the impetus to screen) and powerful processor, touch brand creation through marketing programs screen, camera resolution functionality, Wi- and other activities, ultimately a brand Fi, high resolution display. Attributes such as resides and is positioned in the minds of body design (shape, weight and dimension) consumer. Kotler and Keller (2012) defines can also define a design related attributes. In it as a name, term, sign , symbol, or design, view of this, design no doubt influences or combination of them, which is used to student’s evaluation and purchase decisions. identify the product offering of a seller and to differentiate them from those of Application Related Attributes competitors. Brand name being a compact Smartphones run on operating system form of communication may connotes (OS) that allows the installations of third meanings such as brand image that party and vendor applications or “Apps”. consumers may consider critical in the Most Smartphone OS’ have their own choice of Smartphone. dedicated Apps that are normally available Corporate name: When a company from a portal for downloading, frequently name is less well known and means little to referred to as an “App Store”. (Uys, Mia, consumers, it is likely that it would influence Jansen, Van der schyff, Josias, Khusu, negative purchase intention since consumers Gierdien, Leukes, Faltein, Gihwala, may most likely have mixed perception of Theunissen & Samsodien, 2012). Karen, Han the company’s products. (Idoko, Ireneus, and Benjamin (2013) reported that Nkamnebe & Okoye, 2013, & Nelson, Smartphone make use of small computer 2002). programs called applications or Apps. Product quality: This is an essential Smartphone Apps range from various component to consider when attemptingto apps like e-wallet, games, e-transact, Google create an image for a brand and enhancing stores, e-Book Readers, Navigation customer satisfaction, increasing customer Software, Services providing news and satisfaction. (Lonial & Selimzaim, 2015). weather feeds, to Apps allowing users to Shaharudin et al. (2011) carried out a study access internet services such as email, on the relationship between product quality

and purchase intention and identified that product quality is based on eight quality Stimulus - Response Model Of Buyer dimensions which includes: Performance, Behavior features, conformance, reliability, durability, Marketers need to understand the serviceability, aesthetics, and Customer buying decisions of its consumers. Because, perceived quality. Studies have rightly consumers make buying decisions every day shown that image attributes plays a major and the main focal point of marketer’s effort role in influences students buying decisions is to know the buying decisions of of smartphone. (Sata, 2013; Tan, Yeh, Chen, consumers. (Kotler & Armstrong, 2012). Lin & Kuo, 2015 & Mokhlis & yaakop, Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders and Wong 2012). (2002) further stated that firms will use more of their resources than ever to study Multi-Attributes Attitude Model consumer’s buying behavior. That is, looking Fishbein’s multi-attribute attitude for answer to question such as, “how do model was mainly developed by Martin A. consumers respond to various marketing Fishbein in 1963, in which he stated that the stimuli that the company might use”? attitude towards certain products will be However, knowing the answer to this reflected by the evaluation of important question will create a great competitive attributes, and then attitude can be assessed advantage over its competitors. by measuring the evaluation of these Thus, firm utilizes various marketing attributes. efforts to influence the decision of According to this model, attitudes are consumers. The marketing stimuli, interprets viewed as having two basic components, one the firms product offering, pricing, is belief about the specific factors of an promotional effort and placing the product. object and another is the overall evaluation Marketers use these stimuli to persuade about the specific factors of an object. It consumers to buy smartphone. And the other implies how an individual evaluates the stimulus, explains the economic, importance of each attributes of the object in technological, political and the psychological satisfying his/her needs. factor that are likely to affect and influence This is formulated as follows: the consumer when considering to buy smartphone. These stimuli presented before Ao = consumers by firms are however dealt with by the buyer’s black box, which comprises Where the buyer’s characteristics and the buyer’s Ao = person’s overall attitude towards the decision process. The marketers know object or product. nothing about the black box as it is a bi = the strength of one’s belief about the metaphor used for consumer’s mind but attribute (i) or factor of that object firms can only predict what goes on inside /product. the black box. After the buyer receives the ei = the performance rating of product stimuli and processes it, then consumers attribute (i). come up with an observable response of n = number of important/salient product product choice, brand choice, purchase attribute. timing, purchase amount and purchase frequency. (Sabnam, 2016). This model helps to identify product strengths and weaknesses from customer’s Empirical Review perspective and it also helps to determine if Romariuk and Sharp (2003) suggested customers perceive the product as intended. in their studies that firms should focus more on how many attributes the smartphone should be associated with. Whilst of course,

Oghojafor, Ladipo and Rahim (2012) factors affecting the choice of mobile maintained in their study that attributes play phones. vital role in the consumer decision making Das (2012) conducted an empirical process since consumers evaluate and research based on survey method on factors compare competitive product based on influencing buying behavior of youth attributes, and that marketers use product consumers towards mobile handsets in India. attributes to differentiate between competing According to the study, a handset of reputed product. Besides from trends to develop a brand name, smart appearance, and with positioning strategy based on unique and advanced value added features, pleasurability relevant attributes. The study further informs and usability; is the choice of young that design has the most important attribute. consumers. In view of this, Zhang, Rau and Zhou (2010) Han et al. (2004) later carried out a conceived that consumer perception and user study on 65 design features of 50 understanding of mobile phone product different mobile phones. They developed attributes are influenced by the following regression models to link the design features factors: common functions, appearance, to overall satisfaction and ‘luxuriousness’, multimedia functions, connectivity, personal ‘attractiveness’ and ‘harmoniousness’. They information management functions, body found that a number of design features plays design, brand & country, and product image. main role for enhancing satisfaction, such as These factors can be used as basis for phone size and weight, color, material, understanding product attributes and its button shape and interface features. influencing potentials/power. More so, study conducted by Singh A comparative study of Tan, Yeh, and Goyal (2009) found out that physical Chen, Lin and Kuo (2015) examined and appearance, brand, value added features, and maintained that product attributes will core technical features are more important include the following important dimensions: than price to youngsters. Price, technology, design, application and Ultimately, by exploring and reviewing image related features. However, studies various researches on smartphone attributes have proven that innovative product features impacting students’ decision of Smartphone, and price are the most valued factors it is clear that these studies only show how consumers take into consideration in their smartphone affects student’s choices. choice of Smartphone. (Mokhlis and However, studies are limited on the ultimate Yaakop, 2012 & Sata, 2013). smartphone attributes influencing student’s According to Park, Wiriady, Surya and evaluation and buying decisions in tertiary Putri (2014). They proposed that the institutions, Lagos, Nigeria. multidimensional factors impacting the consumer choices of mobile phones have Research Hypotheses been investigated and analyzed through a The study aim is to ascertain the plenty of studies over time and across the influence of smartphone attributes on buying nations. On the other hands, Karjaluoto et al. decisions among students in tertiary (2005) reported that price, brand, interface, institutions. The specific objectives are and properties tend to be influential factors therefore set to evaluate the following affecting the actual choice amongst mobile alternative hypotheses (H): phone brands. Also, Ling, Hwang and H1: There is a significant affect between Salvendy (2006) investigated college price related attribute and student’s students to identify their preference of buying decision of Smartphone. current mobile phone. The results of their H2: There is a significant affect between survey indicated that the physical technology related attribute and appearance, size and menu organization of student’s buying decision of the mobile phones are the most determinant Smartphone.

H3: Design related attribute will direction of multiple choice questionnaire significantly affect students’ buying type. It was subjected to test of reliability decision of Smartphone. and validity. The validity was achieved by H4: There is a significant affect between subjecting the instrument to a review across application related attribute and doctoral students and lecturers in University student’s buying decision of of Lagos. Whose contribution assisted in Smartphone. generating the final draft. H5: Image related attribute will The reliability test was carried out significantly affect student’s buying through the instrument of cronbach alpha test decision of Smartphone. , which yielded positive results of 7.28. See Appendix A.Data analysis were carried out METHOD using descriptive and inferential statistics The research design was based on and more importantly multiple regression. descriptive research design, employing cross sectional survey method in data collection. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Result Population and Sample The result of the analysis revealed that The population of the study comprise the majority of respondent that partook in the of the following figure: University of Lagos survey was female students with 53.8 with 3000 students and Federal College of percent. And more so, the findings revealed Education (Tech.), Akoka with 792 students. that majority of this respondent are between Therefore, our total population (N) is 3,792 the age brackets of 16 – 28 with 61.4 students. The study will be using a multi- percent. The regression model adopted for stage sampling method. At the first stage, the this study is as follows: faculty of business administration of the University of Lagos is considered, and the Regression Model/Equation school of business education of the federal SBD = β + β I+ β A+ β D + β P+ β TRA 0 1 2 3 4 5 college of education, Akoka is also used. At Therefore, if Y= β + β the second stage, Yamane model was 0 1…. adopted to determine the sample size for this Then, SBD = study. 3.051+0.022(I)+0.445(A)+0.131(D)+0.348(P n = N )+0.753(TRA) 1+N(e)2 Where : Where: n= Sample size SBD = Students buying decision N= Total population I = Image e = Sampling error A = Application D = Design. However, stratified sampling method P = Price which is a tool of probability sampling TRA = Technology Related Attributes technique was used to select a total of 362 Β = This is the regression coefficient students and according to the Yamane which is computed by the regression tool. β = This is the regression intercept. formula. 0 Thus, a total number of three hundred and sixty-two (362) copies of questionnaire Re-statement of Alternative Hypotheses: were administered to respondents, using H1: There is a significant affect between multi-stage and random sampling methods. price related attribute and student’s buying decision of Smartphone. Study Instrument H2: There is a significant affect between The data collection instrument was technology related attribute and purely a structured questionnaire in the

student’s buying decision of ß=0.753; t(327)=9.736, application: ß= Smartphone. 0.445; t(327)= 8.066 and price: ß= 0.348; H3: Design related attribute will t(327)= 11.201. However, design: ß= 0.131; significantly affect students’ buying t(327)= 5.867 and image: ß= 0.022; t(327)= decision of Smartphone. 0.636 was not significant as P > 0.05. H4: There is a significant affect between application related attribute and Discussion student’s buying decision of With regards to hypothesis one, that Smartphone. there is a significant relationship between H5: Image related attribute will price related attribute and student’s buying significantly affect student’s buying decision of Smartphone. Thus, the (ß=0.348) decision of Smartphone. further confirms that smartphone attribute of (Price) positively influence student’s buying Regression Analysis decision of smartphone and therefore implies The result shows the multiple that an increase in price will result into correlation coefficient ‘R’(0.986) which is 34.8% increases in student’s buying the correlation between the variables, while decision. This however corroborates the R square (0.972) indicates the amount of studies of Mokhlis and Yaakop (2012) and variance in the choice of smartphones by the Sata (2013) that innovative product features attributes. In this case, smartphone attributes and price are the most valued factors account for 97.2% of the variance in consumers take into consideration in their consumer choices of smartphones. And that choice of Smartphones. the P (Sig.) 0.000 < 0.05 shows that a By validating hypothesis two, positive relationship existed between the Technology related attributes positively students buying decision and smartphone influence student’s buying decisions of attributes. Hence, the alternative hypotheses smartphone with a (ß=0.753), this implies previously stated above are hereby accepted. that an increase in technology will cause Based on ANOVA, the cumulative p-values 75.3% increase in student’s buying decision of the regression results shows that p (sig) of smartphone. Thus, a comparative study of 000.0 < 0.005 and this affirm that the model Tan et al. (2015) examined and maintained significantly predicts student’s buying that consumers will assess product features decision of smartphone. of smartphones on the basis of its technological advancement. Hence, studies Table 1. Coefficients have proven that innovative product features

Uns tandardized S tandardized and price are the most valued factors Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig. consumers take into consideration in their B Std. Error Beta choice of Smartphone. (Mokhlis & Yaakop, Constant 3.051 .238 12.796 .000 2012 & Sata, 2013). Price .348 .037 .012 11.201 .001 The (ß= 0.131) shows that design Technology .753 .046 .232 9.736 .000 positively influence student’s buying Design .131 .036 .050 5.867 .046 Application .445 .042 .063 8.066 .007 decision of smartphone and therefore Image .022 .035 .035 .636 .125 hypothesis three falls within the accept a. Dependent Variable: students buying decision of smartphone region, which also implies that an increase in Source: Authors’ computation design attribute will cause a 13.1% increase in student’s buying decision of smartphone. The regression results in Table 1 shows This result is in line with the studies of Han that three out of five product attributes will et al. (2004) that a number of design features contribute significantly to student’s buying plays main role for enhancing satisfaction, decision of smartphone. Therefore, it is such as phone size and weight, color, evident from this result that technology: material, button shape and interface features.

Application shows a positive influence population of study was students in two on student’s buying decision of smartphone selected tertiary institution in Lagos State. A with a (ß=0.445), this implies that an total of 362 copies of questionnaire were increase in application will result into 44.5% administered to the students in this increases in student’s buying decision of institutions, however, 327 questionnaires smartphone. were retrieved from the respondent giving a Image Attributes positively influence response rate at 90.3 percent. Inferential student’s buying decision of smartphone statistics such as correlation and multiple with a (ß=0.022), which makes hypothesis regression analysis were used to analyze the five to be accepted. This also implies that an data. The result showed that all product increase in image will result into 02.2% attributes considered in this study positively increase in student’s buying decision of and significantly influence students buying smartphone. This also corroborates with the decision of smartphone. Specifically, study of Ling, Hwang and Salvendy (2006) technology attribute has high impact on which investigated college students to students buying decision of smartphone, identify their preference of current mobile followed by application and price attributes. phones. The results of their survey indicated The study concluded that technology, that the physical appearance, such as image, application and price are considered the most size and menu of the mobile phones are the top three attributes that significantly most determinant factors affecting the choice influence students buying decision of of mobile phones. smartphone. Based on the analyzed data and However, the result showed that all the tested hypothesis of the research work, smartphone attributes considered in this the following recommendations are study will positively and significantly considered to be useful to smartphone influence students buying decision of companies, managers and practitioners in the smartphone. Specifically, technology field of marketing. The study recommends attribute has high impact on students buying that firms should focus on improving their decision of smartphone, followed by technology in other to bring about innovative application and price attributes. The study features and application, and more concluded that technology, application and importantly adopt variety of price strategies price are considered the most top three while not neglecting the image and design attributes that significantly influence attributes, as these were regarded as students buying decision of smartphone. secondary attributes in determining consumers’ choice of smartphones. Conclusion Given the analogy in previous sections REFERENCES of this study, we can rightly say that Aaker, D.A., Batra, R. & Myers, J.G. (1992). marketing is fundamental importance to Advertising management. 4th ed. business organizations. Hence, there is need Prentice Hall, London. for us to study this function of business Belch, G.E & Belch, M.A. (2003). activity in details. And interestingly, the Advertising and promotion: 6th ed. S.I. essence of marketing is to meet unmet needs The McGraw Hill Companies through provision of products that satisfy the consumers. This study is an assessment of Das, D. (2012). An empirical study of factors the influence of smartphone attributes on influencing buying behavior of youth student’s buying decision in Lagos state consumers towards mobile handsets: A tertiary institutions. The independent case study in coastal districts of variables are Price, technology, design, Odisha. Asian Journal of Research in application and image and the independent Business Economics and Management, variable is student buying decision. The 2(4), 68

Dodds, W. & Monroe, K. B. (1985). The Karjaluoto, H., Karvonen, J., Kesti, M., effect of brand choice information on Koivumaki, M., Pakola, J., Ristola, A. subjective product evaluations, in & Salo, J. (2005). Factors affecting Hirschman, E.C., & Holbrook, M.R. consumer choice of mobile phones: Two studies from Finland, Journal of Dorsch, M.J., Grove, S.J. & Darden, W.R. Euromarketing, 14(3), 59-82. (2000). Consumer intensions to use a service category, Journal of Services Khan, S. & Rohi, S. (2013). Investigating the Marketing. 14(20), 92-117 factors affecting youth brand choice for mobile phones purchase – A study of Dziwornu, R. K. (2013). Factors Affecting Private Universities Students of Mobile Phone Purchase in the Greater Peshawar. Management and Accra Region of Ghana: A Binary Marketing, 8(2), 369. Logic Model Approach. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 5 (6), Kotler, P & Armstrong, G. (2012) Principles 151-162 of marketing, 14th Ed. New Jersey, Pearson Education. Fishbein, M.A. (1963) An Investigation of the Relationships between Beliefs Kotler, P. & Keller, K.L. (2012) Marketing about an Object and the Attitude management, 14th Ed. New Jersey, Toward That Object, Journal of Pearson Education. Human Relation, vol. 16 (3), pp. 233- Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. & 239. Wong, V. (2002) Principles of Han, S. H., Kim, K. J., Yun, M. H., Hong, S. marketing, 3rd European ed. England, W., & Kim, J. (2004). Identifying Pearson education Ltd. mobile phone design features critical to Lancaster, K.J. (1966) A new approach to user satisfaction. Human Factors and consumer theory, journal of political Ergonomics in Manufacturing & economy, 74, 132-157. Service Industries, 14(1), 15-29 Lau, M.M., Lan, A.Y.C., & Cheung, R. Idoko, E., Ireneus, N.C., Nkamnebe, A.D. & (2016). Examining the factors Okoye, V.I. (2013). Effect of intrinsic influencing purcgase intention of and extrinsic product cues on smartphone in Hong Kong, consumers purchase intension: A study Contemporary management research, of alcoholic beverage consumer in a 12(2), 213-224. developing country metropolitan city, Journal of Arts, Science and Lay-yee, K., Kok-siew, Han, Yin-fah & Commerce, 4(3). Benjamin (2013). Factors affecting smartphone purcahase decision among Jacoby, S & Olson, J.C. (1985). Perceived Malasian generation Y, International quality, Lexington MA: Lexington Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(12), books, 209-232. 2426-2440. Jobber, D. (2004) Principles and practice of Ling, C., Hwang, W., & Salvendy, G. marketing, 4th ed. U.K. McGraw-Hill (2006). Diversified users’ satisfaction International Ltd. with advanced mobile phone features. Karen, L.L., Han, K.S. & Benjamin, C.Y. Universal Access in the Information (2013) Factors affecting Smartphone Society, 5(2), 239-249. purchase decision among Malaysian Lonial, S.C. & Selimzaim, (2015) generation, International Journal of Investigation of product attributes and Asian Social Science, 3 (12), 2426- their effect on overall satisfaction. 2440

Malasi, J.M. (2012) Influence of Product Sata, M. (2013) Factors affecting consumers Attributes on Mobile Phone Preference buying behavior of mobile phone among University Students: A Case of devices, Mediterranean Journal of Undergraduate Students, International Social Sciences, 4(12).103-112. Journal of Academic Research in Seiler, W. J. & Beall, M. L. (2005). Economics and Management Sciences, Communication: Making connections. 1(6), 10-14 USA: Pearson education Inc. Mohan, A. (2014). Consumer behavior Shaharudin,M.R,Hassan,A.A., Mansor,S.W., towards smartphone industry in indian Elias,S.J., Harun,E.H & Aziz,N.A market, Master of business (2010). The relationship between administration thesis, Dublin business extrinsic attributes of product quality school. with brand loyalty on Malaysia Mojaye, E.M. (2015) Mobile phone usage national brand motorcycle/sector, among Nigerian University students Canadian social science, 6, (3), 165- and its impact on teaching and 175. learning, Global Journal of Arts Singh, J., & Goyal, B. B. (2009). Mobile Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(1), handset buying behavior of different 29-38. age and gender groups. International Mokhlis, S., & Yaakop, A. Y. (2012). Journal of Business and Management, Consumer Choice Criteria in Mobile 4 (5), 179. Phone Selection: An Investigation of Solomon, M.R., Bamoss, G.J., Askegaard, Malaysian University Students. S.t. & Hogg, M.k. (2013). Consumer International Review of Social behavior: A European perspective, 5th Sciences & Humanities, 2(2). ed. Harlow, Pearson education limited. Oghojafor, B.A., Ladipo, P.K, & Rahim, Tan,W., Yeh, Y., Lin, Y. & Kuo. C. (2015). A.G (2012). The influence of product How consumers assess product’s attributes on consumer purchase features? : A case study of product decision in the Nigerian food and features of Smartphone, recent beverage industry: a study of Lagos researches in applied mathematics and Metropolis, American Journal of economics. Business and Management, 1 (4), 196- 201. Uys, W., Mia, A., Jansen, G.J., Van der schyff, H., Josias, M.A., Khusu, M., Park, T., Wiriady, D., Sarya, N. & Putri, C. Gierdien, M., Leukes, N.A., Faltein, S., (2014). Factors impacting on Gihwala, T., Theunissen, T., & university student’s choice of mobile Samsonien, Y. (2012). Smartphone phone: Malaysian case, Proposal, application usage amongst students at a Monarsh University. South African university. International Peter, J.P. & Olsen, J.C. (1994). information Management Corporation. Understanding consumer behavior. 3rd. Zhang, T., Rau, P.L., & Zhou, J. (2015) ed. Boston: Irwin. Consumer perception of mobile phone Sabnam, S. (2016). Influencing factors on attributes. consumer buying behavior of smartphones: A Research on the buying behavior of young consumer in Kathmondu, Nepal, Bachelor Thesis, Business Administration, International Business School.