INTRODUCTION:

Since 1990 to till date Indian laptop market met scores of changes, growth and also resulting drastic purchase challenges. Because this market has been flooded by more than 28 laptop brands, continuous innovation, intensive competition, marketers customized services have led to huge increase in the amount of products available in one category, availed tyranny of laptop choices, and varieties. Furthermore, in order to communicate with consumers, most of the laptop marketers attempting to promote their products and services through large array of commercial channels, availing their products on vertical and horizontal intermediaries and etc. Ultimately, it results in purchase complexity for certain extent. The phenomenon of increasing choice, abundant information, ambiguous messages and technical complexity creates consumer’s pre and post purchase confusion. Therefore, need of the hour is to address consumers purchase related confusion and satisfaction.

UNCLARITY CONFUSION:

There are many studies explain the unclarity confusion arises due to purchase features and information sources. Unclarity confusion is uncertainty perceived by a buyer and situation like feeling of discomfort from the information ambiguity and incongruity. Further, unclarity confusion is also called as ambiguity confusion and it is also caused by product composition complexity, technical jargons, competitive pricing, discounting, special promotions or conditions of use, ambiguous information and advertisement or false product claims, poor product manuals, technological complexity (Turnbull et al., 2000). However, Ambiguity (unclairty) confusion is defined by Mitchell et al. (2005) as “a lack of understanding during which consumers are forced to re-evaluate and revise current beliefs or assumptions about products or the purchasing environment.”

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Elizabeth Cowley (1998) discussed that high knowledge consumers are better able to recognize information from indirect comparisons of various advertisements however their retrieval confidence is higher when the comparison is direct, even when they are wrong. Low knowledge consumers always get confuses on more brands often in direct comparative ads due unclarity and foil types of information availability. Chryssochoidis, G. (2000) mentioned that unclairty confusion as a situation in which consumers form inaccurate beliefs about the attributes or performance of a less known product as they found themselves on a more familiar product’s attributes or performance. David Gilbert et.al. (2003) found that technology anxiety /complexity correlates with demographic variables such as age, gender and academic qualifications. Hoang et.al (2003) revealed the parental perceived discrepancies, lack of understanding on nutritional message, values and incorrect nutritional rating of the products resulted degree of consumer confusion among parents. Drummond (2004) found that the drivers of consumer confusion appear to be presented within the higher education sector and which affects consumer rights, quality of consumer decisions. Ngapo et al (2004) in his research found that unclear and limited information available at the point of purchase perplexed consumers which in turn result mistrust about product and brands. Hoang(2004) in his study found that information confusion exists among parents in relation to the energy content of food products. Parents are important due to the instrumental role they play in their child’s nutrition - both as decider and provider of the different types of foods that are consumed. Erasmus et.al.,(2005) mentioned the limited consumer socialization, lack of appropriate product knowledge forced them to experience purchase and usage confusion. Walsh & Mitchell (2005) in their research work addressed the ambiguity-confusion and unclarity proneness does have a noteworthy impact upon word-of-mouth and trust. Laufer et al., (2005) stated the comparative results of younger and older consumer’s perception toward product confusion and harm and also older consumers are less impacted by the fundamental attribution error in certain situations as well as less likely to infer controllability. Further elderly consumers might be less likely to exhibit negative consequences associated with blaming the company, such as reduced purchase intentions and negative word of mouth. Lianxi Zhou (2005) in their study highlighted the global, local branding; marketing communication strategies were potential causes of brand confusion. Further, the perspective of "think globally, act locally" for international campaign in emerging markets is cautioned in light of the confusion phenomenon. Patrick Vargas, Justin Kruger (2005) found that products that were the same price were perceived as a different price, and products that differed in price (by as much as several hundred dollars) were perceived as the same price. Runa and Fah (2006) found that ethnic groups more favored and not confused if product packaging is imprinted in their own national language and also researchers pointed out language may be the reason of creating ambiguous confusion among the consumers. Jones, Sandra C. and Mullan, Judy (2006) evidence that type of information and consumer perception on direct-to-consumer advertising may root people to ask their physician for inappropriate medicines and become more confused due to inappropriate information. Simonaromani, (2006) in their experimental study points that when price information is communicated using misleading practices, consumers develop lower levels of trustworthiness toward the source of information as well as willingness to buy. Furthermore, these effects are heightened in the presence of doubt and confusions. These results provide evidence that consumers may react unfavorably to misleading price information. In addition, the research demonstrated that this negative response is greater for suspicious rather than non-suspicious consumers. Leek and Kun (2006) found that technological complexity was the major source of confusion to Chinese consumers and Technical confusion leads to similarity confusion and over choice confusion. Consumer generally involves family and friends while taking decision. Word of mouth was the common source of information used to reduce their confusion due to its credibility and reliability. Leek and Chansawatkit(2006) writes that Thai consumers experienced Technical and over-choice confusion. Most confused aspects were the network, the services, handsets and the tariffs and problem associated with these were due to differing degree of subcomponent of confusion( technical complexity and over-choice ).Further, to reduce their confusion, Thai consumer always rely on Family and friends and opted as most power full source of information.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY:

Based on the above reviews of literatures, the following research objectives were framed. The present study of the objective is determining the level of unclarity confusion in the Indian laptop market. Particularly what level of purchase related ambiguity confusion perceived by the students during their laptop purchase? And whether the unclairty confusion significantly differs between male and females students or not? Finally to know the level of satisfaction exist among genders and whether any confused consumer, perceived satisfaction or not.

First part of the questionnaires contained the demographic and details of laptop they purchased, usage as well as competency of laptop handling at the time of purchase. Second part was related to the potential types of consumer confusion, level of satisfaction and they can state in on five –point likert scale from strongly agree through to strongly disagree. For pilot, the questionnaires were initially administered to sample of 30 first year post graduate business administration students of PPG business school. The aim was to check that the issues were significant; the questions were clearer and easy to understand. Based on the result of pilot study, the layouts of the question were changed and targeted samples were under graduate and post graduate students in various colleges in Coimbatore city. By applying Non-probability convenient sampling technique, three hundred and fifty students who purchased laptop two years before were given the survey. Finally sample of 259 correctly filled questionnaires were considered for the analysis.

RESULTS OF THE STUDY:

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE:

Of the 259 samples, the majority of which consisted of male students which accounting 77.2% and 85.3 % of the student’s age were ranging from 18 to 21 years. More than sixty percent of the respondents were currently residing at semi urban part of Coimbatore. Among five levels of monthly family income, More than fifty six percent of the respondents were fall in the category of 20001-30000 whereas very meager response goes to above 500001. More than eighty percent of the of the samples were currently studying undergraduate in various colleges in and around Coimbatore city.

LAPTOP DETAILS:

Of the 259 respondents, 217 respondents purchased laptop within the one year of current research. The top most brand purchased by the samples were Dell, Acer , Lenovo, Sony, HP. More than forty percent of the customers have purchased laptop from Laptop showrooms, followed by thirty five percent of the respondents purchased from their college referred distributors/marketers and very minimum number of the students bought from local trade fairs /computer exhibition. Thirty six percent of the respondents rated their Laptop usage skill as moderator, thirty four percent of them were rated themselves as a beginner and rest of the respondents were having excellent competency in using the laptop. With regard to usage, more than 40.5% respondents report that the laptop usage were 2-4 hours per day, followed by thirty percent of subjects were using between 4-6 hours per day and only 1.9% respondents opined that they are using the laptop more than eight hours and less than two hours per day respectively.

Gender and Unclarity confusion

Gender	Low	High	Total
Male	96 (48%)	104 (52%)	200 (77.2%)
Female	29 (49.2%)	30 (50.8%)	59 (22.8%)
	125(48.26%)	134(51.74%)	259(100%)

LEVELS OF CONSUMER CONFUSION:

The respondents of this study were asked to give opinion about ambiguity confusion perceived during the time laptop purchase. Students who found different types of confusion rated in 5 point likert scale varying from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). By median cutoff the respondents were categories into – low and high level of confusion. 51.7% (134) students were expressed higher level of unclarity confusion while choosing their respective laptop brands and almost 125 (48.3%) respondents claimed that they experienced lower level of unclarity confusion during the laptop purchase decision. Further an attempt made to know the gender perceived more or less ambiguity confusion at the time of purchase. The cross tabulation results that , of the 200 male students 52% of them were highly confused due to ambiguity information and messages which were communicated by the various brands, showrooms and marketers whereas 48% of the males were opined that they experienced lower level of confusion at the time of purchase. In the case of female students, Only 59 female students participated and opined about level of unclarity confusion. Like male students, 50.8% of the female consumers were perceived more purchase related confusion while 49.3% of them were opined that they were less likely confused about various sorts of information spread by the marketers. Further, Compared to female students, male students were more confused. Because of their habits of information searching, high involvement with various sorts of information sources and also mostly female’s purchase decision were more accompanied by their family members as well as purchase colleagues.

UNCLARITY CONFUSION AND SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRENT LAPTOP:

The cross tab analysis is performed to know the association between level of confusion and level of satisfaction. It means that whether low or highly confused consumers have satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Out of 125 both male and female samples, 70.40% of the students were opined that currently they have satisfaction due to less attempt made by them to know the information sources as well as they concentrated much on few brand related details, while 22.40% of the less likely confused consumers perceived dissatisfaction on current laptop. In order to reduce more unclairty confusion, 134 respondents were adopted certain strategies like joint decisions, probed more information in few showrooms, avoided more comparison and few peoples were taken technical related supports from sales peoples, technical experts which in turn results 83.58% highly confused consumers were satisfied with laptop purchase.Neverthless,10.44% of them were also dissatisfied with the current laptop performance and blamed about pre-purchase information sources and abundant messages supplied by the laptop marketers. Furthermore, Comparing Low and highly confused consumer’s satisfaction level, highly confused students showed positive attitude towards their purchase which results the acceptable satisfaction than the dissatisfaction.

GENDER AND CONFUSION:

In order to find the degree of unclarity confusion among male and female students, ANOVA test performed and result of the test shown that : There is no significant difference in male and female students on unclarity confusion (F levels of consumer confusion:=0.02, p<0.88). Hence, it can be said that with respect to gender ambiguity confusion is same or moderate (not high or low). Further, an attempt was made to know the level of satisfaction among confused male and female students. Among 200 male samples (including low and high confused students), 74.5% of them were shown satisfaction expression whereas only 17.5% of the male consumers expressed the dissatisfaction. On the other hand, among 59 samples (including low and high confused students), 86.44% of the female students expressed satisfaction about their purchase and current performance while very meager(11.86%) female students were perceived dissatisfaction about current laptop.

Gender	Satisfaction with the current laptop
			HS	S		N		DS	HDS		Total
Male	No of Respondents		10.00	139.0		16.00		14.00	21.00		200.00
	Percentage		5.00	69.50		8.00		7.00	10.50		100.00
Female	No of Respondents		4.00	47.00		1.00		6.00	1.00		59.00
	Percentage		6.78	79.66		1.69		10.17	1.69		100.00
ANOVA test
Unclarity Confusion			Sum of Squares		df		Mean Square			F		Sig
		Between Groups	0.01		1.00		0.01			0.02		0.88
		Within Groups	64.67		257.00		0.25
		Total	64.67		258.00

Unclarity confusion and Satisfaction with the current laptop performance. Comparing to both gender satisfaction level, even though male and female students were satisfied with their purchase, female samples experienced more satisfaction than their counterparts. Because, most of the confused consumers applied certain strategies like more rely on their purchase colleagues and often they use to go with reliable sources as well as less compared the laptop features.

CONCLUSION:

Interestingly, unclarity confusion like technical difficulties; ambiguous messages were substantial purchase related factors for the younger and educated respondents of this survey. More than fifty percent of the males and females student were more confused at the time of laptop purchase and applied self driven strategies to reduce their purchase burden. These strategies vary with respect to low and highly confused situation. ANOVA test reveals that purchase related unclarity confusion for male and female student not significantly differing and both genders were perceived same level of confusion which was neither higher nor lower. Generally, people believe that confused consumer will express negative consequences like frustration, negative word of mouth, dissatisfaction and etc. But this research survey brings out that the highly confused consumers expressed satisfaction about their purchase and performance of their laptop. Hence, Pre-purchase confusion is not only associated with negative consequences and also positively associated post purchase satisfaction. The study results have not represented the entire population of the laptop holders. Further research suggested conducting investigation among various geographical locations and different socio-demographic segments.

REFERENCES:

1. Elizabeth Cowley (1998), The Effect Of Message Format And Content On Consumers’ Confidence In Their Memory: Another Take On Comparative Advertising, European Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 3, eds. Basil G. Englis and Anna Olofsson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 108-113.

2. Chryssochoidis, G. (2000). Repercussions of Consumer Confusion for Late Introduced Differentiated Products. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 705-722.

3. David Gilbert, Liz Lee-Kelley, Maya Barton, (2003) "Techn“phobia, gender influences and consumer decision-making for technology-related products", Eur”pean Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 Iss: 4, pp.253 – 263.

4. Hoang,C, Jones,SJ and Thornton,J, (2003), Consumer confusion: parents nutritional perceptions of food advertisements, ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide 1-3 (Proceedings Of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Adelaide) , pp.1985-1989 - http://ro.uow.edu.au/hbspapers/90

5. Hoang, C, Jones, SC and Thornton, J, (2004) ,The influence of magazine advertising on parents' nutr’tion ratings of food products for children, J (ed), Proceedings of the Marketing Accountabilities and Responsibilities: ANZMAC 2004 Conference, School of Marketing and International Business, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, 29 November-1.

6. Drummond, G. (2004) Consumer Confusion: reduction strategies in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management. 18 (5). pp. 317-323.

7. T. M. Ngapo ,E. Dransfielda, J. -F. Ma–tina, M. Magnusson, L. Bredahl and G. R. Nute (2004),Consumer perceptions: pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark.Meat science , volume 66, issue 1, January 2004 , pp: 125-134.

8. Alet C Erasmus, Meriam M Makgopa & Mphatso G Kachale (2005) ,The paradox of progress: inexperienced consumers’ choice of major household appliances, Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 33, ISSN 0378-5254, pp.89-101.

9. Gianfranco Walsh and Vincent-Wayne Mitchell (2005), Consumer Vulnerability to Perceived Product Similarity Problems: Scale Development and Identification, Journal of Macromarketing, 25, 140-152.

10. Daniel Laufer, David H. Silvera , Tracy Meyer (2005),Exploring Differences Between Older And Younger Consumers In Attributions Of Blame For Product Harm Crises , Academy of Marketing Science Review Volume no. 07 Available: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/laufer07-2005.pdf.

11. Lianxi Zhou (2005), Understanding Consumer Confusion On Brand Origin In A Globalizing World, Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 6, eds. Yong-Uon Ha and Youjae Yi, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 359-363.

12. Patrick Vargas, Justin Kruger (2005), "Consumer Confusion Of Percent Differences: When Less Is More And More Is Less", Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 6, eds. Yong-Uon Ha and Youjae Yi, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 76.

13. Ernest Cyril De Runa ,Chin Sien Fah (2006) ,Language Use In Packaging: The Reaction Of Malay And Chinese Consumers In Malaysia , Sunway Academic Journal 3, 133–145.

14. Jones, Sandra C. and Mullan, Judy (2006), Older adults’ perceptions and understanding of direct-to-consumer advertising, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 6-14. http://ro.uow.edu.au/era/255

15. Leek, S. and Kun, D. (2006). Consumer confusion in the Chinese personal computer market. Journal of product and Brand Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 184¬ 193(10).

16. Leek, S. and Chansawatkit, S. (2006). Consumer confusion in the Thai mobile phone market. Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 5, Issue 6, pp. 518-532.

17. Simona Romani, (2006),Price misleading advertising: effects on trustworthiness toward the source of information and willingness to buy, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 15 Issue: 2, pp.130 – 138

Received on 18.01.2012 Accepted on 05.03.2012

Asian J. Management 3(1): Jan. – Mar. 2012 page 35-39

Unclarity confusion	Satisfaction with the current laptop
Unclarity confusion		HS	S	N	DS	HDS	Total
Low	No of Respondents	3.00	85.00	9.00	13.00	15.00	125.00
Low	Percentage	2.40	68.00	7.20	10.40	12.00	100.00
High	No of Respondents	11.00	101.00	8.00	7.00	7.00	134.00
High	Percentage	8.21	75.37	5.97	5.22	5.22	100.00