Satisfaction Dimensions of LCD TVs in Comparison with the CRT TVs Sultan Kaygın Sel
VESTEL Electronics, R&D Division, Turkey Middle East Technical University, Turkey firstname.lastname@example.org
There is a great transition from CRT TV to flat panel TV usage. This transition has an effect on the preferences, expectations and satisfaction criteria of flat panel TV users. This research will inquire the satisfaction dimensions for CRT TVs and LCD TVs, as a common type of flat panel TV, and point out whether there is an effect of the before mentioned transition on the satisfaction dimensions for LCD TVs. Keywords: CRT TV, flat panel TV, user preference, satisfaction.
Today there is a transition from CRT TV to flat panel TV consumption. The decrease in the number of CRT TVs and increase in the number of flat panel TVs in the world’s leading TV production companies, the disappearance of CRT TVs in the consumer electronics fairs worldwide (i.e. IFA 2006-2007-2008, CEBIT 2006-20072008, CES 2007-2008-2009) and appearance of flat panel TVs in all the brand’s showrooms is a strong clue for this transition. This transition should also have an effect on the preferences, expectations and accordingly satisfaction criteria of LCD TV users. This research aims to explore the satisfaction dimensions for CRT TVs and LCD TVs and point out whether there is an effect of the before mentioned transition on the satisfaction dimensions for LCD TVs. 1.1 Satisfaction Satisfaction is a considerable issue for marketing discipline since it affects the purchase of the products. Satisfaction with its great emphasis in marketing is therefore deeply explored in this discipline since 1970s (Wirtz & Mattila, 2001). Different definitions of satisfaction exist in the literature. Giese & Cote (2000) mention about a need to clarify its definition prior to measurement as the measures may be questionable otherwise. It is defined mainly with the concept of fulfillment of expectations. Swan & Combs (1976) explain the process of satisfaction according to the theoretical resources as following: “When purchasing a product the consumer makes
predictions (forms expectations) concerning the future performance of the item. As the item is used, the consumer compares the quality of performance to his expectations. If the product performs as well as, or better than expected he will be satisfied. If, however, performance is below expectations, dissatisfaction will result.” (p.25)
This process is called as the confirmation-disconfirmation paradigm (Cadotte et al, 1987). Anderson and Suillivan (1993) pointed out that the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of customers could be measured based on the gap between the expectations of customers before purchasing and the performance of the purchased products or services. There also exist an idea on the concept that consumers judge products according to some attributes, some of them being important determinants for satisfaction and the remaining some not critical for satisfaction but are related to dissatisfaction when they lead to poor performance (Swan & Combs, 1976). In marketing discipline satisfaction is explored and evaluated in terms of customer and purchasing action whereas in this study it will be explored in relation to user and usage since the product is in intense relation to user after the purchasing action. Although satisfaction is regarded in the side-line besides efficiency and effectiveness in HCI literature (Hassenzahl et al., 2001), consumer electronics products need to satisfy the user in terms of both their performance and image-impression felt by them (Han et al. 2001). Han et al. (2001) find the common usability definition inconsistent with consumer electronic products. They state that consumer electronic products are not merely tools fulfilling their function but also a visual object that is placed in the living environment. Indeed they reflect the preferences of its user and the...
References: 1. Anderson, Eugene W., & Suillivan, M. (1993). The antecedents and consequence of customer satisfaction for firm. Marketing Science, 12(2), 25–43. 2. Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., Jenkins, R. L. (1987). Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August 1987), (pp.305-314) 3. Giese, J., Cote, J. A., (2000). Defining Consumer Satisfaction.Academy of Marketing Science Review (online), Available: www.amsreview.org/articles/giese01-2000.pdf. 4. Han, S., Yun, M. H., Kwahk, J., ong, S. W., (2001). Usability of Consumer Products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, (pp.143-151) 5. Hassenzahl, M., Beau, A., Burnester, M., (2001). Engineering Joy. IEEE Software, Jan/Feb, (pp. 2-8) 6. Swan, J. E., Combs, L. J., (1976). Product Performance and Consumer Satisfaction: A New Concept. Journal of Marketing, 40 (April 19/6), (pp. 25-33) 7. Wirtz, J., Mattila, A., (2001). Exploring the Role of Alternative Perceived Performance Measures and Needs-Congruency in the Consumer Satisfaction Process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(3), (pp. 181-192)
Please join StudyMode to read the full document