service quality delivery on pepsi

1. INTRODUCTION

The rich content of scanner data enables the estimation of structural econometric models to be

used to investigate market power and analyze policy. Recent advances in structural approaches to

empirical market power analysis combines estimated demand functions with game-theoretic

models of a particular industry to estimate its competitive nature. However, economic and

econometric theory is often silent on the specific econometric estimators that should be

employed. Each one having similar, but differing restrictions on the assumptions of the

underlying sample from which the data is collected. As a result, the objective of this study is to

empirically compare several different estimators of a supply model, and look at the differences

each one implies with respect to the nature of the competitive game the carbonated soft drink

(CSD) market plays. The CSD category is used in our empirical analysis for several reasons.

First, the industry is highly concentrated at the manufacturing level, being largely dominated by

two manufacturers. However, retail outlets have recently been introducing, and pushing, their

own private label brands as a way of expanding category profits. Second, the industry is well

known among a wide range of consumers not only in the U.S., but largely throughout the world.

Thus many retail outlets carry the same set of products making the competitive nature of the

CSD industry an empirical question at not only the manufacturer level, but also at the retail level.

Finally, given the long history of the industry, particularly in the U.S., steady state equilibrium is

likely to exist. Thus the CSD market is an ideal category for comparing the competitive nature

implied from several different econometric estimators. The remainder of the paper is organized

as follows. In the next section we present the econometric model used to analyze the market

power of the CSD market. This section begins with a brief overview of the demand and supply

models used, followed by their specification.

1

1.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

Around 1984 the first branded soft drink came in the Indian market. This soft drink was named

as gold spot. Before Coca-Cola entered the country to dominant the scene in 1950’s, Parley

exports Pvt. Ltd were the first Indian company to introduce a lemon soft drink, this drink was

known as Limca and it was introduce in 1970’s. However, before this they had introduced cola

piping, which was withdrawn in face of tough competition from coca-cola.

In the year 1977 coca-cola left Indian market and this brought in an opportunity for various

Indian companies to show their caliber, at this time a new soft drink was introduced by parley

product and this was named thrums up.

This was Coca-cola drink, which had a burnt sugar color. This drink was introduced with a

mighty “happy days are here again”. As if happy days went away with coca-cola .There was

another company named pure drinks, which introduced the soft drink named campa-cola along

with orange and lemon flavors.

Just after this many more companies entered the Indian soft drink market. A soft drink named

double-7 had been introduced by a company modern baker. Another company, Mohan meckins

also came with a softy drink named marry & puck up. Mcdowell came with thrill, rush and sprit.

Previously there was no competition in the Indian soft drink market but with all these companies

coming in the Indian market a huge competition was a place with high voltage advertisement.

But in the year 1988 Pepsi was given permission to sell its soft drinks in the Indian market by the

government of India. Coca-cola also co history of soft drink come back 1993.

Soft Drink Market Indian Scenario

Indian soft drink industry is witnessing a boom time. Its growth rate is around 20% with such a

high growth rate, volume could reach billion crates with 10 years .Three major multinational

companies are fighting to grab a major chunk of business from Indian markets. These three

major multinational companies are fighting to grab a major chunk of business from Indian

markets. These three coca-cola, Pepsi, Cadbury. All of these companies have seen an enormous 2

potential in this country .Consequently, by world standard India per capita consumption of soft

drinks is still very low. Therefore these soft drinks grants feel that fire capita consumption can

only grow up. Soft drinks industries has already seen and estimated sale of around 240 million

crates higher than last year’s sale of 204 million in 1998. The main reason for such a high

growth rate heightened competition between Coca-cola and Pepsi, Cadbury, being a new entrant

is for behind. India is actually more vivid in taste and preference than any other country market.

Delhi jar instance, accounts for about 20% of total soft consumption in terms of sales.

There are about 4, 80,000 soft drinks retailers in India and their numbers are increasing day by

day. This actually means that there is just one soft drink retailer on a population of 37,600,

which is far below the international standard. Where as Philippines has one soft drink retail

counter over a population of 150 people i.e. 4, 00,000 outlets on population of 60 million.

Soft drinks shows strong double-digit growth

In 2011, soft drinks registered a higher off-trade value growth rate than the review period

average. This growth was attributable to strong double-digit performances in sectors such as

sports and energy drinks, bottled water and fruit/vegetable juice, which had a good year due to

rising mercury levels. Long summers and higher disposable incomes are the main growth drivers

for the soft drinks category.

Fruit/vegetable juice outshines carbonates in terms of growth

Fruit/vegetable juice showed considerably stronger growth than carbonates, being viewed as a

healthier alternative. Soft drinks giants Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd and pepsico India Holdings Pvt

Ltd have recognised this trend and are strengthening their product offerings in fruit/vegetable

juice. With a focus on healthy diets, consumers in urban areas are slowly shifting from

carbonates to fruit/vegetable juice, which also received a major growth boost from on-the-go

consumption.

3

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo compete through lemonade/lime carbonates

Lemonade/lime carbonates was among the stronger performers in the carbonates category in

2011. Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd and PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd continue to compete

aggressively in this category by increasing the visibility of their brands Sprite, Limca and 7-Up

respectively. Catchy taglines were used by manufacturers to generate consumer interest,

alongside aggressive campaigns using Bolly wood actors.

Modern retail shows steady growth

Leading chained retailers are on a major expansion drive, which has led to an increase in soft

drinks volume sales. Manufacturers have leveraged this to showcase their new variants in a bid

to broaden their consumer base. The modern retailing channel is helping to facilitate the growth

of soft drinks. Modern retail offers a unique experience for consumers, where they can touch and

feel the product before buying. Tier two and three cities have also seen the robust growth of

modern retail outlets.

Indians will continue to consume more soft drinks

Dynamic products such as sports and energy drinks, bottled water and fruit/vegetable juice will

drive strong growth in soft drinks during the forecast period. Soft drinks giants pepsico India

Holdings Pvt Ltd and Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd are targeting the rural segment to enhance their

presence. The outlook for soft drinks looks very positive in the forecast period due to strong

marketing activities and product innovations by manufacturers.

4

1.2 COMPANY PROFILE

One of the dynamic industries in our country is the soft drink industry. Soft drinks are a non-

alcoholic beverage made with carbonated water. Such drinks are called soft to distinguish them

from Alcoholic or hard drinks. Soft drinks are also called pop because the type of bottle caps

used before 1890’s made a popping noise when removed. People in various areas call soft drinks

as soda. Most soft drinks are sweetened and flavored with specially prepared syrup, the

flavoring are usually made from various plant part such as root, bark and seeds of cola tree.

Most brands of soft drinks were manufactured through franchised bottle with a security

formulated beverage syrup or flavor base.

Mr. Joseph Priestly, an English Chemist, produced the first artificially carbonated water in the

year 1772. At that time mineral water was a popular remedy for certain diseases. Previously

artificial mineral water was also called as soda water. In 1806 bottled soft water was produced

and sold by Mr. Benjamin Sill man, a Chemistry Professor at Yale College. The number of soft

drink bottling company in the United States increased approximately from 65 to 2000, during

1970’s increased in the price of soft drinks. Many people switched to less expensive non-

carbonated soft drinks, produced using powdered mixes which became an important part of an

industry

Corporate Overview

Pepsico was incorporated in the year 1919 and was re-incorporated in North Carolina in 1986.

Pepsi is engaged in beverage and snack food business. Pepsico is a multinational company and it

is most successful consumer product company in the world with annual revenue of $ 20 billion

and about 1, 43,000 employees. Some of pepsico’s brand names are nearly 100 years old.

Pepsico has achieved a leadership position in each of the two major packaged good business i.e.

Beverage and snack chips. Pepsico the conglomerate king of soft drink has its wide range of soft

drinks products available in every book & corner of the world.

5

The Indian Story

Pepsi & Co came to India as food processing unit, Punjab during the year 1986-87 head office

Pepsi food unit situated in Delhi, employees are more than 2500 people. Pepsi co today is the

leader in the cola and orange segments of beverages in India and enjoys leadership in soft drinks

in many parts of the country.

It focuses on execution excellence, strengthen, bottle network, reach and penetration in rural and

semi-urban areas and dealer focused marketing areas.

Pepsico is a global food and beverage leader with net revenues of more than $65 billion and a

product portfolio that includes 22 brands that generate more than $1 billion each in annual retail

sales. Our main businesses – Quaker, Tropicana, Gatorade, Frito-Lay and Pepsi-Cola – make

hundreds of enjoyable foods and beverages that are loved throughout the world. Pepsico’s people

are united by our unique commitment to sustainable growth by investing in a healthier future for

people and our planet, which Pepsi believe also means a more successful future for pepsico.

Pepsi call this commitment Performance with Purpose: pepsico’s promise to provide a wide

range of foods and beverages for local tastes; to find innovative ways to minimize our impact on

the environment by conserving energy and water and reducing packaging volume; to provide a

great workplace for our associates; and to respect, support and invest in the local communities

where Pepsi operate

Mission

We have absolute clarity about what we do ‘WE SELL HIGH QUALITY FOOD AND

BEVERAGE PRODUCTS’. Our success will ensure: dealers will build their business,

employees build their futures, and shareholders build their wealth.

Vision

Pepsico's responsibility is to continually improve all aspects of the world in which we operate

social, economic - creating a better tomorrow than today.

6

Products in India

1. 7UP

2. Aliva

3. Aquafina

4. Cheetos

5. Duke’s

6. Gatorade

7. Kurkure

8. Lay’s

9. Lehar

10. Mirinda

11. Tropicana

12. Nimbooz

13. Pepsi

14. Quker oats

15. Slice

16. Tropicana

17. Uncle chipps

Brand History

7

Tropicana was founded in Bradenton, Florida, USA, in 1947. It is now enjoyed almost

everywhere in the world. Carefully nurtured for over 50 years, Tropicana has matured into one of

the most respected beverage brands. Tropicana is the #1 brand in packaged 100% Juice in the

world in 2011 in off-trade volume. It is today available in 63 countries. Since 1998, Tropicana

has been owned by pepsico, Inc. Tropicana Premium Gold was re-launched as Tropicana 100%

in 2008.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is only on service quality so the other aspects such as satisfaction, Brand

Recognition, Brand Image, Brand loyalty and other branding concepts are not covered.

Perception of the retailers towards the Pepsico also studied in this research.

This study covered only the area of the Chennai city. So, the information and the

conclusion derived from the study are only relevant to this area alone.

8

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To know the quality of service delivery provided by the PepsiCo.

To know the PepsiCo planning towards the distribution channel strategy.

To know how strong relationship PepsiCo has with the distributors and retailers.

To know the perception of retailers towards the service quality of the PepsiCo.

To know the factors that affects the service quality delivery.

9

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Review of literature is the most useful and simple method of formulating the research problem.

The researches done by previous researchers are reviewed and their usefulness is evaluated to

serve as basis for further research. Thus researcher reviews and builds upon the work of others.

The reviews that are collected by the researcher should give an insight into the field under study.

The reviews must explain the need and scope of the study under consideration.

Sasser et al. (1978) has defined services as commodities that cannot be stored or disappear in

use, or as activities that require personal contact. The distinct characteristics of services are

intangibility, perishability, heterogeneity of the product, and simultaneity of production and

consumption Two economic units are required for a service to be produced – the consumer and

the producer. While the consumer cannot retain the actual service after it is produced, the effect

of the service can be retained. Managing a service operation requires the manager to understand

the service concept, service delivery system, and service levels. As the consumer has a key role

in the definition and evaluation of all three elements, it is imperative that service managers have

a clear understanding of consumer expectations and perceptions. Services may be provided by

private or public agencies. These characteristics enhance the importance of certain marketing

strategies that are unique to services marketing, such as service customization, managing

evidence, making the service tangible, and synchronizing supply and demand patterns.

10

Service quality is more difficult for the consumer to evaluate than goods quality. Perceptions of

service quality result from a comparison of consumer expectations with actual service

performance. Quality evaluations are not made solely on the outcome of a service; they also

involve an evaluation of the process of service delivery.

Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) emphatically pointed out that the concept of quality

prevalent in the goods sector is not extendable to the services sector. Being inherently and

essentially intangible, heterogeneous, perishable, and entailing simultaneity and inseparability of

production and consumption, services require a distinct framework for quality explication and

measurement.

As against the goods sector where tangible cues exist to enable consumers to evaluate product

quality, quality in the service context is explicated in terms of parameters that largely come

under the domain of ‘experience’ and ‘credence’ properties and are as such difficult to measure

and evaluate (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2001).

One major contribution of Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) was to provide a terse

definition of service quality. They defined service quality as ‘a global judgment, or attitude,

relating to the superiority of the service’, and explicated it as involving evaluations of the

outcome (i.e., what the customer actually receives from service) and process of service act (i.e.,

the manner in which service is delivered). In line with the propositions put forward by Gronroos

(1982) and Smith and Houston (1982), Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985, 1988) posited

and operationalized service quality as a difference between consumer expectations of ‘what they

want’ and their perceptions of ‘what they get.’ Based on this conceptualization and

operationalization, they proposed a service quality measurement scale called ‘SERVQUAL.’

The SERVQUAL scale constitutes an important landmark in the service quality literature and

has been extensively applied in different service settings.

Boulding et al. (1993) perceived the dimensions of service quality as a function of a customer's

prior expectations of what will and what should transpire during a service encounter, as well as

the customer's most recent contact with the service delivery system. These perceptions of quality

11

dimensions form the basis for a person's intended behavior. Their findings suggest that the two

different types of expectations have opposing effects on perceptions of service quality and that

service quality perceptions positively affect intended behaviors.

Zeithaml et al. (1993) explored the gap between expectations and perceptions to better

understand expectations as they pertain to customer assessment of service quality and to extend

the theoretical work that exists in the customer satisfaction literature. Based on their study, the

gap between customer expectations and perceptions as proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985)

can be conceptualized to reflect two comparison standards: desired service which reflects what

customers want, and adequate service which indicates the standard that customers are willing to

accept.

The comparison between desired service and perceived service or the level of service customers

believe is likely to occur, called perceived service quality (PSQ) is the perceived service

superiority gap. The comparison between adequate service and perceived service, called PSQ

Gap 5 is the perceived service quality adequacy gap. The smaller the gap between desired service

and perceived service, the higher the perceived superiority of the firm. The smaller the gap

between adequate service and perceived service, the higher the perceived adequacy of the

service.

Lowndes and Dawes (2001) have found that Service quality is commonly thought to comprise

of five generic dimensions - responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, empathy and reliability. These

dimensions form the basis for service measurement tool SERVQUAL. This tool predominantly

focused on customer perceptions and expectations of quality and helps the organizations to

improve upon their service quality resulting in greater customer retention.

Jain and Gupta (2004) have done a comparative analysis of two major service quality

measurement scales: SERVQUAL and SERVPERF. An ideal service quality scale is one that is

not only psychometrically sound but is also diagnostically robust enough to provide insights to

the managers for corrective actions in the event of quality shortfalls. This study assesses the

diagnostic power of the two service quality scales. Using data collected through a survey of

consumers of fast food restaurants in Delhi, the study finds the SERVPERF scale to be providing

12

a more convergent and discriminant valid explanation of service quality construct. However, the

scale is found deficient in its diagnostic power. It is the SERVQUAL scale which outperforms

the SERVPERF scale by virtue of possessing higher diagnostic power to pinpoint areas for

managerial interventions in the event of service quality shortfalls. SERVPERF scale should be

used for assessing overall service quality of a firm because of its psychometric soundness and

greater instrument parsimoniousness. One should employ the The SERVPERF scale should also

be the preferred research instrument when one is interested in undertaking service quality

comparisons across service industries.

Arasli et al (2005) has analyzed and compared service quality in the commercial banking sector

of a small island economy – Cyprus. The author with others investigated the relationship

between overall bank customer satisfaction in the Turkish- and Greek-speaking areas of Cyprus

and positive word-of-mouth about their banks. There is disparity in the banking sector of a

divided Cyprus, where banks in the South have undergone significant restructuring before EU

accession and banks in the North are affected by the economic crisis and need to restructure if

they want to join the EU.

After descriptive and factor analysis, multivariate regression was used to estimate the impact of

service quality dimensions on overall customer satisfaction and word of mouth.

It was found that the responsiveness dimension failed to load and thus the SERVQUAL scale

proved to be of a four-dimensional structure in this study. Research results revealed that the

expectations of bank customers in both areas were not met and that the largest gap was found in

the empathy dimension. The assurance dimension had the largest influence on customer

satisfaction and overall satisfaction of bank customers in both areas of Cyprus had a positive

effect on their word-of-mouth. The study helped the banks in both areas of Cyprus to redefine

their corporate image to one that is customer-focused and driven by service quality.

Prajapati and Kachwala (2006) in their study have found out that the delivery of information

i.e. knowledge transmission in the case of Management Education Institutes (MEI) is intangible

in nature. Therefore, the inputs in terms of delivery of this knowledge - faculty, equipment and

the entire environment and infrastructure are very important for quality.

13

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=932779


A gap was found between the quality rendered by faculty and service provider, and quality

required by students. It is essential to understand the exact quality required by the students to

develop a course and curriculum that suit their requirements. Service quality needs to be

quantified and thus it can be described in terms of objective and perceptual characteristics:

Objective characteristics include things like, lecture time, wait time, etc., and can be easily

quantified. Perceptual characteristics on the other hand, depend on the students' perceptions,

which include dimensions of service quality based on the SERVQUAL and other service quality

instruments. The study encompassed Business Schools in Mumbai as perceived by students are

evaluated.

The questionnaire is on the basis of a hypothesized model for service quality. Factor analysis of

the responses helped to develop a working model for the perceived service quality factors in

Management Education Institutes. This helped in identifying the improvements in Service

Quality in Management Education Institutes.

Cauchick Miguel et al (2007) have highlighted the fact that competitiveness and search for

profits have called for more attention towards customer’s satisfaction and increased

organizations interest in service quality.

SERVQUAL technique is applied on a multinational company service chain including one

hundred shops located throughout the country, to assess quality service dimensions that are

delivered through the perspectives of managers and customers. It was found that the certain

quality dimensions and characteristics call for managerial attention. Responsiveness and

assurance were found to be the most relevant to shop managers and customers, respectively.

Quality improvement initiatives were proposed to enhance the service rendered by the car repair

shops. The paper concludes that there are differences among the perspectives of shop owners and

customers with regard to quality dimensions.

Hii Geng Hing (2007) has examined Service Quality (SERVQUAL) variables from the

perspective of hotel guests in Sibu. Since Sibu is an emerging market for tourism industry so the

information obtained from hotel guests can be utilized to attract more guests. Stanley has used

Gap 5 (Gap between expected service and perceived service) and factor analysis to analyze the

14


data obtained in order to determine satisfaction and perception of the guests. Data obtained from

189 respondents revealed a negative Gap 5 perception and a rich expectation and perception

factors. Recommendations for managers and future studies are presented.

Saravan and Rao (2007) have highlighted that in service firms the practitioners are interested to

know the customer perceptions of service quality for identifying shortfalls and improving service

delivery. This study has analyzed the discrimination among the three groups (customer oriented,

employee oriented and technology oriented) of overall service quality from the customers’

perspective.

The results indicate that both the technological factors and the people-oriented factors appear to

contribute more in discriminating the three groups of overall service quality. Further, the service

quality indices in the Indian automobile service sector as a whole indicate a satisfactory

performance.

Swaid and Wigand (2007) in their study have found that to satisfy and retain customers the

organization has to offer a superior service quality. The study indicates that the key dimensions

of ecommerce service quality are website usability, information quality, reliability,

responsiveness, assurance and personalization.

Secondly customer satisfaction is influenced mostly with the perception of reliability, while

customer loyalty is affected by the perception of assurance and customer retention is predicted

by the customer satisfaction index.

Rajagopal (2008) has analyzed the impact of market orientation strategies and performance of

customer services on customer acquisition, retention and sales of automobiles which reveals

overall performance of automobile dealers in Mexico. The study comprehends understanding on

customer-dealer relationship in the automobile market segment referring to key factors which

establishes service quality encompassing tangibility, responsiveness, trust, accuracy and

empathy. It was found that the customers perceive better quality of relationship in a given frame

of functions that are performed effectively by the dealer lowering the extent of conflicts thereof.

High conformance quality services of dealers and value added customer relationship to offer

15

high customer satisfaction develop life time customer value and strengthen the customer-dealer

relationship.

According to vavra (1995), quality is consistently delivering products and services that fully

meet consumer needs and expectations. Quality is defined by stonebraker and leong (1994) in the

following terms: product or service quality requires a total system, which identifies customer

requirements, which designs the product/service to those requirements and which establishes a

production or service delivery system to produce in conformance with the specifications.

According to woodruff (1997), customer value is: a customer’s perceived preference for and

evaluation of that product attributes, attribute performances, and consequences arising from use

that facilitate (or block) achieving the customer’s goals and purposes in use situations.

Vandermerwe (1996) makes three assumptions regarding customer value:

1. Value is not what goes into a product, but what a customer gets out of it.

2. A customer gets this value out over a period of time, rather than at a point in time.

3. Value happens in the customer's space rather than in supplier’s space, where only costs

accumulate. According to naumann and giel , becoming market driven means identifying market

growth, market attractiveness, and target markets, while becoming customer driven means using

the customer to drive continuous improvement, organizational reinvention, and radical redesign.

When a company is customer driven, it means that the customer is the one to decide on the

supplier's value added processes. Quality work does not mean quality service (maister, 1997).

According to brown (1992), customers prefer organizations that deliver quality service, and

suppliers can charge premium for quality services. Early research (grönroos, 1982) suggests that

customers access service quality by comparing what they feel a seller should offer and compare

it against the seller's actual service performance.

Quality control and marketing must take place during service production and consumption.

Grönroos (1988) has identified a list of six criteria of good perceived quality professionalism and

skills, attitudes and behaviour, accessibility and flexibility, reliability and trustworthiness,

recovery, and reputation and credibility. The first is outcome-related, reputation and credibility

16

are image-related, and the rest are process-related. Storbacka and holmlund note that relationship

quality can be seen as an antecedent to many other perception concepts, for example, value,

satisfaction, trust, and commitment. The service quality model of parasuraman (1985) identified

five key gaps that can cause problems in service delivery. These gaps are:

1. Research gap – between customer expectations and management’s perception of that

expectations.

2. Planning and design gap – between management's perception of what the customer wants and

the designed capabilities of the system that management develops to provide the service.

3. Implementation gap – between what the service system is designed to provide and what it

actually provides.

4. Communication gap – between what the service system provides and what the customer is told

it provides.

5. Reality gap – between customers' service expectations and their perception of that service.

A company should always pay attention to the customer perceptions and expectations. If there is

a difference between customer expectations and perceptions, there is a gap and in practice, it

does not matter whether the gap is based on facts or feelings, but how the customer perceives

service matters. In studies of customers' expectations of service quality and their actual

experiences, the following five elements are seen as the most important to a buyer (gitomer,

1998, heskett et al. 1990, parasuraman and grewal.

Reliability – ability to provide what was promised

Assurance – knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and

confidence.

Tangibles – physical facilities, equipment and the appearance of the personnel

Empathy – caring and individual attention

Responsiveness – willingness to help and provide prompt service.

17

Two critical dimensions are reliability and responsiveness. Generally, reliability is the most

important for customer when they assess service. Responsiveness means anticipating problems

before they occur, rather than fixing problems quickly. Companies must work at making sure

that problems will not occur at all. Once the customer is sure about the quality of the product and

responsiveness of the employees, the probability of a customer becoming a loyal customer

increases.

According to friday and cotts (1995), customers evaluate services based on the purpose of the

service, necessity, importance, results, cost, and risk. In order to have appropriate expectations, a

customer should have a full picture of the purpose of a job. Depending on the customer’s

perception, the necessity of a service can vary. If a service is necessary to help customers

perform their jobs, they have high expectations for the job. If a customer sees a risk associated

with dealing with the company, their perception of the added value can be minimal.

Ghobadian et al. (1994) posit that most of the service quality definitions fall within the

“customer led” category. Juran (1999) elaborates the definition of customer led quality as

“features of products which meet customers’ needs and thereby provide customer satisfaction.”

As service quality relates to meeting customers’ needs, we will be looking at “perceived service

quality” in order to understand consumers (Arnauld et al., 2002). Grönroos (1984) and

Parasuraman et al., (1985) looks at perceived quality of service as the difference between

customers’ expectation and their perceptions of the actual service received. Other researchers

look at perceived service quality as an attitude. Arnauld et al., (2002) defined perceived quality

“whether in reference to a product or service” as “the consumers’ evaluative judgment about an

entity’s overall excellence or superiority in providing desired benefits” (p. 327). Hoffman &

Bateson (2001) defines service quality as an attitude “formed by a long-term, overall evaluation

of a performance”. Attitude is defined as “a consumer’s overall, enduring evaluation of a concept

or object, such as a person, a brand, or a service.”

(Arnauld et al, 2002) Service quality as “an attitude” is consistent with the views of Parasuraman

et al., (1988), Cronin & Taylor (1992) & Sureshchandar et al., (2002). Basis of the view is

elaborated by the latter: “As perceived service quality portrays a general, overall appraisal of

18

service i.e. a global value judgment on the superiority of the overall service, it is viewed as

similar to attitude.” (p. 364).

Feinburg & de Ruyter (1995) pointed the importance of adapting the definition of service quality

in different cultures. Ueltschy & Krampf (2001) contended that differences in culture affect

measure of quality in a service sector. They encapsulated service quality measures as “culturally

sensitive” and “may not perform properly or comparatively in a culturally diverse group

domestically or abroad” (p.22). Cultural factors are said to have greater influence on people’s

evaluation of services than on their evaluations of physical goods due to involvement of

customer contact and interaction with employees while a service is delivered (Mattila, 1999).

Feinburg & de Ruyter (1995) postulated that the differences “require adapting service quality to

an international setting” (p. 4). Furthermore, the service quality dimensions that are critical most

to consumers vary according to culture and industry (Winsted, 1999).

It is difficult to measure service quality as compared to good’s quality. The difficulty to measure

is due to fewer tangible cues available when consumers purchase services (Parasuraman et al.,

1985), fewer search properties, but higher in experience and credence properties (Zeithaml, 1981

in Parasuraman 1985), as compared to goods.

It also requires higher consumer involvement in the consumption process (Grönroos, 1984).

Researchers operationalize the service quality construct either as a gap between expectation of

service and perceived performance of service, or just perceived performance alone (Hurley and

Estalami, 1998). On the other hand, service quality dimensions are seen as the criteria to assess

service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, 1985). Feinburg, and de Ruyter (1995)

supported this idea as they postulate that the dimensions are instruments for measuring perceived

service quality. They also posit that consumer-perceived service quality is usually seen as a

multi-dimensional construct.

The earliest research on service quality dimensions was done by Grönroos (1984). He found that

the perceived quality of a service is affected by the experience that the consumer went through

for a service. Therefore, he encapsulated the perceived quality of a given service as the outcome

of an evaluation process; a comparison between the consumer expectations of the service with

19

his perceptions of the service he has received. He also pointed that expectation is influence by

traditions, ideology, word-of-mouth communication, and previous experience with the service

and the consumer’s perception of the service itself determines his perceived service.

However, he did not discuss the relationship between perception and expectation and how it

influences service quality.

Grönroos (1984) found that “service quality” comprises of three global dimensions. The first

dimension is the technical quality. This dimension refers to the outcome or what is delivered or

what the customer gets from the service. For a retail store, technical quality may include the

range of products offered and the availability of parking space. The next dimension is the

functional quality which refers to the manner in which the service is delivered or how it is

delivered. Customers of a retail store will measure whether the salespeople are friendly or

whether products are easily returnable. Finally, the last dimension is the corporate image. The

store’s image is built by mainly both technical and functional quality and to some extent other

factors like the traditional marketing activities.

The most popular service quality model in the 1990s (Robinson, 1999) is the model by

Parasuraman et al., (1985). Their model supported Grönroos’ findings on as the models are based

on these three underlying themes: “1) Service quality is more difficult for the consumer to

evaluate than goods quality; 2) Service quality perceptions result from a comparison of consumer

expectations with actual service performance; 3) Quality expectations are not made solely on the

outcome of the service; they also involve evaluations of the process of the service” (Parasuraman

et al.,1985, p. 42)

Unlike Grönroos (1984) who used global measure of service quality, Parasuraman et al. (1985)

identified items or criteria in measuring service quality. They argued that consumers used similar

criteria irrespective of the type of service in measuring service quality. They then group these

criteria into 10 key categories which they labeled as “service quality determinants” (p. 48). The

determinants are reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication,

credibility, security, understanding/knowing the customer, and tangibles. Later in another

20

research (Parasuraman et al., 1988), into only five dimensions - tangibles, reliability,

responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.

Physical Aspects

Service is said to be distinguished from goods due to its intangibility (Santos, 2002). The

tangibility aspects of a service have a significant effect on perceived service quality (Santos,

2002). The tangibility importance varies according to types of service (Santos, 2002). For a retail

store, the tangibility aspect will be critical as the retailers offer a mix of merchandise and service

quality (Dabholkar et al., 1996). Specifically, the physical environment plays an important role

in the service encounter of the grocery industry (Keillor, et al., 2004).

The importance of physical environment in a service setting is due to its ability to influence

consumer attitudes(Koernig, 2003), behaviour intention (Keillor, et al., 2004) and behaviour

(Bitner, 1992; Koernig, 2003). As customers are involved in the production and consumption

process of a service conducted within a physical environment, the physical environment will

have a deep impact on customers’ perception of service experiences (Bitner, 1992). Bitner

(1992) also noted that physical environment is often used as cues of a firm’s competences and

quality by consumers before a purchase. Specifically, proper layout in a store will reduce

shopper’s search time (Sirohi et al., 1998), colour combine with lighting were suggested to

“affect consumers’ cognitive representation and affective reaction” (Babin et al., 2003, p. 549),

and a light and pleasing scent affects shoppers’ perceptions of a shopping environment in which

the latter will have a significant effect on shoppers’ mood (Chebat & Michon, 2003).

Researchers have given several names with different interpretations to the “physical” elements of

service quality measure. Dabholkar et al. (1996) used the term “physical aspects” to refer to the

physical appearance of store and layout convenience. Parasuraman et al. (1988) called it as

“tangibles” adding appearances of staff besides physical facilities and equipment. Baker (1986)

and Santos (2002) acknowledged the appearance of staff as part of tangibles. They also added

existence of other customers in the service facility onto the interpretation. Bitner (1992) dropped

the social environment as listed by Baker (1986), Parasuraman et al.

21

(1988), and Santos (2002) but focus instead on the “built environment” or what she called as

“servicescape”. She categorized the servicescape to include ambient conditions, spatial layout

and functionality, and signs, symbols, and artifacts. Ambient conditions include colour, music,

temperature, lighting, and scent. Spatial layout refers to the arrangement, size, shape, and spatial

relationships of machinery, equipment, and furnishings.

Functionality refers to the capability of machinery, equipment, and furnishings to enhance

performance and achieve customer goals. Lastly, signs, symbols, and artifacts act as signals that

communicate information about the service place to customers.

Statement of the Problem

The changing retailers’ perception because of the availability of variety of products in soft drinks

segment along with the growing number of competitors had a major impact in the preference of a

particular brand. Dealers and distributors are expecting very high service quality from the soft

drink companies to ensure the availability of the products.

The players in the soft drink market in the Chennai are Pepsi, coke, Dr Pepper Snapple, Buffalo

rock, Lemonade and parle agro. Each and every company has different varieties of product

category in the drinks, which gives lot of options for the retailers and dealers in Chennai.

22

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research is the systematic process of collecting and analyzing information in order to increase

our understanding of the phenomenon about we are concerned or interested. A descriptive

research has been carried out at the first stage by applying a survey method. Data for the study

were collected from retailers and distributors in Chennai. The tool used for data collection was a

well-structured questioner.

Method of data collection:

The primary data has been collected from the retailers through survey.

Tools used for analysis:

Questionnaire has been used to collect the data from the employees. In this study, it is presented

through tables.

Data analysis made by using simple percentage method and karl pearson co-efficient of

correlation and one way ANOVA.

Research design

23

Research design selected for this project is descriptive.

Data collection method:

(a) Primary data collection method:

Survey method was used for primary data collection.

We used questionnaire as an instrument for survey method.

Structured questionnaire.

(b) Secondary data collection method:

Reference books and Internet.

Sampling detail

1. Target population: the population for this research study consists of the retail outlets.

2. Sample size: 200 retailers

3. Sampling method: the sample is selected by using convenience-sampling method.

24

4. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS

4.1 Gap analysis

Table 1: Gap analysis of reliability dimension

Reliability dimensions Experienced Expected Gap

You recommend Pepsi dealership to your friends and relatives 3.27 3.22 0.05

All the bottles and tins are original and quality tested 3.14 3.28 -0.14

You are always getting the new replaced bottles after service 3.18 3.32 -0.15

There is always consistency in service provided by Pepsi 2.96 3.10 -0.15

The personnel shows interest in solving the problems of dealers 3.07 2.97 0.10

Average mean 3.12 3.18 -0.06

25

Inference

Table 1 show that the Dealer’s average expected reliability dimension value is greater than

experience reliability dimension value. The average gap value is negative (-0.06). service quality

on reliable dimension variable like recommendations to others and employees personal interest

in problem solving is positive and all other variables like quality of bottles and tins, getting new

replaced bottles and consistent service are negative. Getting new bottles for replacing is the top

ranked reliability variable with the mean value of 3.30.

Table 2: Gap analysis of responsiveness dimension

Responsiveness dimensions Experienced Expected Gap

For lodging the complaints over telephone the service provider is easily accessible

2.94 3.49 -0.55

Your complaints or queries are taken seriously and attend timely 3.01 3.27 -0.27

Application/ registration formalities in Pepsi are convenient to dealer 3.09 3.12 -0.03

Pepsi offers satisfied follow up and service reminder of periodic maintained service

3.25 3.03 0.21

The billing system of the firm is accurate and error free 3.06 3.02 0.03

Average mean 3.07 3.19 -0.12

26

Inference

Table 2 shows that the Dealer’s average expected responsiveness dimension value is greater than

average experience responsiveness dimension value. The average gap between expected and

experience responsiveness dimension value is negative (-0.12). Service quality on

responsiveness dimension variable like satisfied follow ups and accurate billings gap is positive

and remaining variables easy accessible, queries, complaints taken seriously, registration

formalities and periodic reminders gaps are negative. Complaints over telephone the service

provider is easily accessible is the top ranked responsiveness dimension variable with the mean

value of 3.49.

Table 3: Gap analysis of responsiveness dimension

Assurance dimensions Experienced Expected Gap

Pepsi offers timely delivery 3.58 3.43 0.15

Pepsi offers promising delivery security 3.08 3.17 -0.09

You are kept well informed prior to service 3.27 3.08 0.19

Pepsi is always trust worthy to dealer 3.10 2.99 0.11

Your overall experience at Pepsi dealership is satisfactory 2.96 3.33 -0.37

Average mean 3.20 3.20 0.00

27

Inference

Table 3 shows that the Dealer’s average expected assurance dimension value is equal to average

experience assurance dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience

assurance dimension value is zero. Service quality on assurance dimension variables like timely

delivery, prior to service and trustworthiness gaps is positive and remaining variables like

promising delivery security over all experience gaps are negative. offers timely delivery is the

top ranked assurance dimension variable with the mean value of 3.43.

Table 4: Gap analysis of empathy dimension

Empathy dimension Experienced Expected Gap

Pepsi is operating at convenient working hours 3.25 3.29 -0.04

Service executive are friendly and polite while handling your complaints

3.19 3.22-0.02

Pepsi shows interest to give personnel attention to you and your specific needs

3.13 3.090.05

Pepsi has less formalities to be completed before providing service

3.04 3.17-0.13

While waiting for the service the dealers are given the facilities for all comfort in the waiting lounge

3.32 3.36-0.04

Average mean 3.18 3.22 -0.04

28

Inference

Table 4 shows that the Dealer’s average expected empathy dimension value is greater than

average experience empathy dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience

empathy dimension value is negative (-0.04). Service quality on empathy dimension variables

like convenient working hours, friendly while handling the complaint, interest on giving

personnel attention, less formalities and comfortable waiting lounge gaps are negative. Waiting

lounge facilities are comfortable is the top ranked empathy dimension variable with the mean

value of 3.36.

Table 5: Gap analysis of Tangible dimension

Tangible Experienced Expected Gap

Pepsi operating at convenient location 2.96 3.39 -0.43

The service provider’s physical facilities infrastructure are visually appealing

3.16 3.72 -0.56

Technology and machines used are modern 3.34 3.79 -0.45

The service personnel are skilled enough to diagnose your problem

3.31 3.44 -0.13

The billing system accurate and up to the mark 3.25 3.47 -0.22

Average mean 3.20 3.56 -0.36

29

Inference

Table 5 shows that the Dealer’s average expected tangible dimension value is greater than

average experience tangible dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience

tangible dimension value is negative (-0.36). Service quality on tangible dimension variables

like convenient location, physical facilities, technology & machines, personnel are skilled and

billing system accurate and up to the mark gaps are negative. Technology and machines used are

modern is the top ranked tangible dimension variable with the mean value of 3.79.

4.2 Reliability test

Table 6: Reliability Test

Variables Cronbach's alpha N of items

Expected dimensions 0.555 25

experienced dimensions 0.558 25

30

Inference

Table 6 shows Cronbach's alpha is 0.555 and 0.558, for expected and experienced service

quality dimensions which indicates a high level of internal consistency for scale with these

specific samples.

4.3 Correlation analysis

Table 7: Correlation between expected and experience service quality variables

H0: There is no relationship between expected and experience service quality variables

H1: There is a relationship between expected and experience service quality variables

Correlation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Experience reliability 1 .237** .251** .276** .300** .277** .252** 0.065 .200** .464**

Experience responsiveness .237** 1 .239** .313** .280** .187** .352** 0.022 .193** .267**

Experience assurance .251** .239** 1 .169* .139* 0.094 .185** .250** .189** .248**

Experience empathy .276** .313** .169* 1 .185** .176* .207** -0.006 .304** .302**

Experience tangibility .300** .280** .139* .185** 1 .189** .279** .283** .215** .491**

Expected reliability .277** .187** 0.094 .176* .189** 1 .180* .234** .344** .187**

Expected responsiveness .252** .352** .185** .207** .279** .180* 1 .189** .235** .232**

Expected assurance 0.065 0.022 .250** -0.006 .283** .234** .189** 1 .140* .150*

Expected empathy .200** .193** .189** .304** .215** .344** .235** .140* 1 0.111

Expected tangibility .464** .267** .248** .302** .491** .187** .232** .150* 0.111 1

Inference

31

Table 7 shows that all the expected and experience service quality dimensions are positively

correlated with one another. Significance of P value is less than 0.05, hence null hypothesis is

rejected.

32

4.4 One way ANOVA

Table 8: One way ANOVA between overall perception on service quality and experienced

reliability dimensions

H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced reliability dimension

variables at 5%.

Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

You recommend Pepsi dealership to your friends and relatives

Between Groups 34.417 4 8.604 3.410 .010**

Within Groups 744.329 295 2.523

Total 778.747 299

All the bottles and tins are original and quality tested

Between Groups 3.957 4 .989 .405 .805

Within Groups 721.413 295 2.445

Total 725.370 299

You are always getting the new replaced bottles after service

Between Groups 9.422 4 2.356 1.033 .391

Within Groups 672.858 295 2.281

Total 682.280 299

There is always consistency in service provided by Pepsi

Between Groups 20.612 4 5.153 1.953 .102

Within Groups 778.305 295 2.638

Total 798.917 299

The personnel shows interest in solving the problems of dealers

Between Groups 31.272 4 7.818 3.071 .017**

Within Groups 750.924 295 2.546

Total 782.197 299

**H0 is rejected.

33

Inference

Significance of ‘F’ value is less than 0.05 for expected consistent service and recommending to

others, hence these variables do vary with overall perception about service quality. Null

hypothesis rejected for these variables.

34


responsiveness dimensions

H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced responsiveness

dimension variables at 5%.

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

For lodging the complaints over telephone the service provider is easily accessible

Between Groups 2.018 4 .504 .192 .942

Within Groups 773.769 295 2.623

Total 775.787 299

Your complaints or queries are taken seriously and attend timely

Between Groups 11.780 4 2.945 1.115 .350

Within Groups 779.457 295 2.642

Total 791.237 299

Application/ registration formalities in Pepsi are convenient to dealer

Between Groups 3.702 4 .925 .385 .819

Within Groups 708.335 295 2.401

Total 712.037 299

Pepsi offers satisfied follow up and service reminder of periodic maintained service

Between Groups 8.358 4 2.089 .831 .506

Within Groups 741.892 295 2.515

Total 750.250 299

The billing system of the firm is accurate and error free

Between Groups 12.676 4 3.169 1.337 .256

Within Groups 699.360 295 2.371

Total 712.037 299

Inference

Significance of ‘F’ value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced responsiveness dimension

variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality does not

vary with responsiveness dimension variables.35


assurance dimensions

H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced assurance dimension

variables at 5%.

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Pepsi offers timely delivery

Between Groups 12.627 4 3.157 1.361 .248

Within Groups 684.253 295 2.320

Total 696.880 299

Pepsi offers promising delivery security

Between Groups 12.192 4 3.048 1.218 .303

Within Groups 738.474 295 2.503

Total 750.667 299

You are kept well informed prior to service

Between Groups 16.971 4 4.243 1.717 .146

Within Groups 728.776 295 2.470

Total 745.747 299

Pepsi is always trust worthy to dealer

Between Groups 5.792 4 1.448 .581 .677

Within Groups 735.154 295 2.492

Total 740.947 299

Your overall experience at Pepsi dealership is satisfactory

Between Groups 6.240 4 1.560 .608 .657

Within Groups 756.757 295 2.565

Total 762.997 299

Inference

Significance of ‘F’ value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced assurance dimension


vary with assurance dimension variables.

36


empathy dimensions

H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced empathy dimension

variables at 5%.

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Convenient working

hours

Between Groups 1.192 4 .298 .113 .978

Within Groups 775.474 295 2.629

Total 776.667 299

Service executive are

friendly while

handling complaints

Between Groups 7.735 4 1.934 .707 .588

Within Groups 806.931 295 2.735

Total 814.667 299

Shows interest to give

personnel attentions

Between Groups 13.134 4 3.283 1.332 .258

Within Groups 727.436 295 2.466

Total 740.570 299

Less formalities to be

completed before

providing service

Between Groups 23.463 4 5.866 2.293 .060

Within Groups 754.573 295 2.558

Total 778.037 299

Comfort in the waiting

lounge

Between Groups 8.205 4 2.051 .853 .493

Within Groups 709.565 295 2.405

Total 717.770 299

Inference

Significance of ‘F’ value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced empathy dimension


vary with empathy dimension variables.

37


tangible dimensions

H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced tangible dimension

variables at 5%.

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Operating at

convenient location

Between Groups .581 4 .145 .090 .986

Within Groups 476.086 295 1.614

Total 476.667 299

Physical facilities

infrastructure are

visually appealing

Between Groups 2.851 4 .713 .488 .744

Within Groups 430.785 295 1.460

Total 433.637 299

Technology and

machines used are

modern

Between Groups 7.324 4 1.831 1.000 .408

Within Groups 539.913 295 1.830

Total 547.237 299

Personnel are skilled

enough to diagnose

your problem

Between Groups 6.709 4 1.677 1.011 .402

Within Groups 489.621 295 1.660

Total 496.330 299

The billing system

accurate and up to the

mark

Between Groups 1.083 4 .271 .136 .969

Within Groups 587.167 295 1.990

Total 588.250 299

Inference

Significance of ‘F’ value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced tangible dimension


vary with tangible dimension variables.

38

5. FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 FINDINGS

Dealer’s average expected reliability dimension value is greater than experience

reliability dimension value. The average gap value is negative (-0.06). service quality on

reliable dimension variable like recommendations to others and employees personal

interest in problem solving is positive and all other variables like quality of bottles and

tins, getting new replaced bottles and consistent service are negative. Getting new bottles

for replacing is the top ranked reliability variable with the mean value of 3.30.

Dealer’s average expected responsiveness dimension value is greater than average

experience responsiveness dimension value. The average gap between expected and

experience responsiveness dimension value is negative (-0.12). Service quality on

responsiveness dimension variable like satisfied follow ups and accurate billings gap is

positive and remaining variables easy accessible, queries, complaints taken seriously,

registration formalities and periodic reminders gaps are negative. Complaints over

telephone the service provider is easily accessible is the top ranked responsiveness

dimension variable with the mean value of 3.49.

Dealer’s average expected assurance dimension value is equal to average experience

assurance dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience assurance

dimension value is zero. Service quality on assurance dimension variables like timely

delivery, prior to service and trustworthiness gaps is positive and remaining variables like

promising delivery security over all experience gaps are negative. offers timely delivery

is the top ranked assurance dimension variable with the mean value of 3.43.

Dealer’s average expected empathy dimension value is greater than average experience

empathy dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience empathy

dimension value is negative (-0.04). Service quality on empathy dimension variables like

convenient working hours, friendly while handling the complaint, interest on giving

personnel attention, less formalities and comfortable waiting lounge gaps are negative.

Waiting lounge facilities are comfortable is the top ranked empathy dimension variable

with the mean value of 3.36.

39

Dealer’s average expected tangible dimension value is greater than average experience

tangible dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience tangible

dimension value is negative (-0.36). Service quality on tangible dimension variables like

convenient location, physical facilities, technology & machines, personnel are skilled and

billing system accurate and up to the mark gaps are negative. Technology and machines

used are modern is the top ranked tangible dimension variable with the mean value of

3.79.

Cronbach's alpha is 0.555 and 0.558, for expected and experienced service quality

dimensions which indicates a high level of internal consistency for scale with these

specific samples.

All the expected and experience service quality dimensions are positively correlated with

one another. Significance of P value is less than 0.05, hence null hypothesis is rejected.

Significance of ‘F’ value is less than 0.05 for expected consistent service and

recommending to others, hence these variables do vary with overall perception about

service quality. Null hypothesis rejected for these variables. Significance of ‘F’ value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced responsiveness

dimension variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service

quality does not vary with responsiveness dimension variables.

Significance of ‘F’ value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced assurance dimension

variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality

does not vary with assurance dimension variables.

Significance of ‘F’ value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced empathy dimension


does not vary with empathy dimension variables.

Significance of ‘F’ value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced tangible dimension


does not vary with tangible dimension variables.

40

5.2. SUGGESTIONS

To set up a complaint handling cell for reducing Dealer grievances.

Better to provide Dealer pick and drop facility. This enhances Dealer and company

relations.

Provide spot and home services to Dealers.

Employees are capable of directly contributing to both Dealer disappointment and

delight .Therefore , it is essential that the dealer have the research and analysis method

that links staff performance engagement directly to the Dealer behaviour, so that they

can hire , train, recognise and reward employees for how they contribute to Dealer value.

To conduct Dealer get together program. It helps for easily understanding Dealer’s

expectations and perceptions towards service quality in company .It also contributing for

the improvement of services given by the company.

Service charges are not reasonable. So company should give discounts to Dealers.

Affordable financing attract and retain Dealers.

Identify what leverages top-end Dealer commitment and advocacy behaviour, and then

build Dealer experience around it.

All the issue of the Dealers regarding sales and service should be dealt with immediately

and overall satisfaction level towards the various services provided by the dealer should

be further raised.

Communicate often with Dealers regarding to build loyalty and to gain intangible,

emotional relationship benefits.

Dealer care employees should be given soft skill training to improve the effectiveness of

Dealer interactions.

The company should identify ways and means to reduce the service time there by

offering an assured shortest possible time.

41

5.3. CONCLUSION

In this highly competitive world organizations have no choice but to provide better services to

Dealer to stay in the market. For an organisation providing services it will be very difficult to

give out the offers to attract Dealers, so to stay in the market providing better services is only the

option.

To conclude, this project Pepsico has created a good image in Chennai city. Dealers of Pepsico

have given positive response towards overall service quality. Service quality plays a vital in

determining marketing image of every company. Once the attributes of services from the

Dealer’s perspective are more clearly known and understood, its service providers will be in a

better position to anticipate consumer requirements rather than to react to consumer

dissatisfaction.

Expectation of the Dealer’s changes every time; it’s hard to understand the expectations of the

Dealers and the retail showrooms must to provide quality service to the Dealers. This study to

recognize the reality that Dealer service quality is very important in the success.

42

APPENDIX

Questionnaires

Particulars Expectation Experience

Reliability 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

1.You recommend Pepsi dealership to your friends and relatives

2.All the bottles and tins are original and quality tested

3.You are always getting the new replaced bottles after service

4.There is always consistency in service provided by Pepsi

5.The personnel shows interest in solving the problems of dealers

Responsiveness

6.For lodging the complaints over telephone the service provider is easily accessible

7.Your complaints or queries are taken seriously and attend timely

8.Application/ registration formalities in Pepsi are convenient to dealer

9.Pepsi offers satisfied follow up and service reminder of periodic maintained service

10.The billing system of the firm is accurate and error free

Assurance

11.Pepsi offers timely delivery

12.Pepsi offers promising delivery security

13.You are kept well informed prior to service

14.Pepsi is always trust worthy to dealer

15.Your overall experience at Pepsi dealership is satisfactory

Empathy

43

16.Pepsi is operating at convenient working hours

17.Service executive are friendly and polite while handling your complaints

18.Pepsi shows interest to give personnel attention to you and your specific needs

19.Pepsi has less formalities to be completed before providing service

20.While waiting for the service the dealers are given the facilities for all comfort in the waiting lounge

Tangible

21.Pepsi operating at convenient location

22.The service provider’s physical facilities infrastructure are visually appealing

23.Technology and machines used are modern

24.The service personnel are skilled enough to diagnose your problem

25.The billing system accurate and up to the mark

Service quality

26.Pepsi successfully match dealer expectation through all forms of communication

27.Pepsi educate dealers adequately

28.Pepsi always keep service promise which they communicate through advertisement

29.Pepsi able to match between advertisement and its operation

30.After sale service of the Pepsi is satisfactory

31.Same complaints are reoccurring after the service

32.Comfortable with the performance of the products after the service

3.All complaints are fully solved

BIBLIOGRAPHY

44

Berndt, A. (2009). Investigating service quality dimensions in South African motor

vehicle servicing, 1(1), 1-9.

Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, a., & Zeithaml, V. a. (1994). Improving service quality in

America: Lessons learned. Academy of Management Perspectives, 8(2), 32-45.

doi:10.5465/AME.1994.9503101072

Brady, M. K., Cronin, J. J., & Brand, R. R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of

service quality: a replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 17-31.

Cole, S. T., & Ph, D. (1998). Service Quality Dimensions Affecting Nature Tourists‟

Intentions to Revisit. Tourism.

Dixit, K. S., Modak, J. P., & Singh, M. P. (2011). ES. Engineering Sciences, (10), 285-

299.

Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers.

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), 53-71.

doi:10.1108/09564239510101536

Kang, G.-D., & James, J. (2004). Service quality dimensions: an examination of

Grönroos‟s service quality model. Managing Service Quality, 14(4), 266-277.

doi:10.1108/09604520410546806

Katarne, R., & Sharma, S. (2010). Measurement of Service Quality of an Automobile

Service Centre. Operations Management, (1).

Kendrick, M. (1997). Kendrick , Michael , “ The Leadership Challenge of Service

Quality ”,. Challenge, 11(1).

Litman, T. (2011). Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements. Spring, 11(2), 43-64.

Martin, W. B., & Ph, D. (n.d.). Quality Customer Service. Quality.

Prof, A., & Nimsomboon, N. (2003). Assessment of Library Service Quality At

Thammasat University Library System. Library.

Rust, R. T., Zahorik, A. J., & Keiningham, T. L. (1995). Return on Quality ( ROQ ):

Making Service Quality Financially. Journal of Marketing, 59(April), 58-70.

Seth, N., Deshmukh, S. G., & Vrat, P. (2005). Service quality models: a review.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management (Vol. 22, pp. 913-949).

Shahin, A. (n.d.). SERVQUAL and Model of Service Quality Gaps : A Framework for

45

Determining and Prioritizing Critical Factors in Delivering Quality Services. Young.

Tan, B.-in, Wong, C.-har, Lam, C.-hoong, Ooi, K.-boon, & Ng, F. C.-yew. (2010).

assessing the link between service quality dimensions and knowledge sharing : Student

perspective. Journal of Business, 4(June), 1014-1022.

Verma, H. V. (2004). RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SERVICE QUALITY.

International Management, 4(1).

Wang, I.-ming, & Jung, C. The relationship between service quality and customer

satisfaction: the example of CJCU library I-Ming Wang Chich-Jen Shieh ∗, 27(1), 193-

209.

46

service quality delivery on pepsi

Documents