Mobile Phone Buying Behaviour in the UK Research Paper

Mobile Phone Buying Behaviour in the UK - Research Paper Example This study looks at the buying behaviour of mobile phone customers in the U.K. using analysis of secondary research data to test the hypothesis that such behaviour is rational. Based on findings from the latest annual industry survey conducted by the Communications Management Association of the U.K., feedback on a consumer website (www.ciao.co.uk), and a review of relevant literature on mobile phone buying behaviour, the study concludes that U.K. consumers exhibit predominantly rational characteristics. Buying decisions, however, are affected by hedonic factors that are emotional in nature, and also by other considerations such as age group, financial capability, and the capabilities and image of the mobile phone model being offered. Consumer decision-making therefore combines the rational assessment of the phone plan, the perceived service quality, and the phone's technology.2. To determine which of the following features have greater influence on the customer's decision to buy a mo bile phone: the plan (tariffs, free minutes, network coverage, etc.), the phone itself (capabilities, image, or advertising), customer service, or a combination of any or all three factors.Conventional marketing theory predicts that buying behaviour of mobile phones follows a rational process because a mobile phone is a high-technology product, it is useful, and it is a personal item that a consumer has close at hand for many hours during the day. The study aims to test the hypothesis that the mobile phone buying behaviour is rational. Proving our hypothesis would mean that customers who buy mobile phones follow a rational decision-making process that marketing theorists summarise as a five-stage process of Awareness Interest Evaluation Trial Adoption. In order to determine whether the buying behaviour is rational, this study looks at each stage of the buying process according to a set of basic rational and emotional factors as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Using secondary research based on U.K. consumer data and their decision to buy a mobile phone service, it would be possible to compare responses with the rational and emotional factors and test our hypothesis based on the results. The hypothesis can be confirmed if the results show that rational factors consistently score higher than emotional factors. Otherwise, the hypothesis is false. Research Methodology and Literature Review The research study used three secondary data sources. The first data source is the latest annual survey of the Communications Management Association (CMA, 2006), a U.K.-based professional organisation of companies in the telecommunications sector, which includes mobile phone suppliers such as Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and Motorola; and mobile service providers such as Vodafone, Orange, O2, T-Mobile, and Virgin. The CMA has been conducting an annual survey since 2003 and publishing the results on its website (www.thecma.com). The CMA conducted its last annual surveys in 2006, and part of the data gathered from the survey are the factors that make up consumer decision-making and satisfaction, consumer concerns, and image perceptions towards mobile phone suppliers and mobile service providers. The second source of data is ciao.co.uk, a shopping intelligence

Australian Globalization Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Australian Globalization - Essay Example Global movement of ideas, people and commodities increases significantly during the 19th century. Development of new transportation forms like railroads and steam ships, and telecommunication infrastructure enabled rapid rates in global interchange (Robertson, 1992). During the twentieth century, airlines, road vehicle and intermodal transport ensured faster transportation. Also by 2010, electronic communication like the internet and mobile phones connected millions of people worldwide (Robertson, 1992). The globalization has led to significant effects in Australia; in terms of transport, communication, business and governance (Stephenson, 1994). This research paper explains both the negative and the positive influencers that the globalization process has had on the; political, social cultural, economic and environmental systems of Australia. In reference to Australia, the globalization process is vital to the future economy, because of Australia’s economic, political and socio-cultural open nature open natures. Globalization is not a single issue, but describes the factors that change an economy like Australia’s into an economy identified with increased mobility of capital, investments, labor and trade. During the last 50 years, Australia has embraced this phenomenon, and therefore received benefits in the financial and trade sectors of the economy. These benefits led to related disadvantages and costs, especially to the organizations that cannot catch up with the incr easing globalization process (Hopkins, 2004).

Factors to consider when designing a web site Essay Example for Free

Factors to consider when designing a web site Essay Due to the high rate of competition and technology advance, any website creating company aims at giving its costumers a product they will enjoy using. Lafleur trading company a website developing company is not left behind i doing so. In their quest to satisfy their customers they needed to upgrade their way of developing website. To enable them do this lafleur reflected on factors to consider when designing a website. To start with, the company realised they need to find out if they are designing a particular website who was their immediate users, what they would expect to find in that particular web site and the easiness of getting what they want. This will be determined by the interphase of the website that is what colours to use, how easy is it to navigate between lafleur website and any related website that might contain contact information about a product advertised in their website (Vu Proctor, 2011). Designing a unique product is an important point to consider. In order to get attention of many audience give them a different product than what they are used to but one that serves the purpose better than the previous one. This can be achieved by use of different colours but attractive ones ( a page should not contain more than three colours) use of graphics and relevant pictures of what you are advertising also will make the web site more user friendly The most important point to put inconsideration is to test your website for errors. Website should be consistent to use and error prone. Contact information pertaining the website should provided so that customers are able to access online information when they so require. Lastly feedback methods to get customers views should be put in place to get customers potion about websites designed by Lafleur Company. Reference Vu, K.-P. L., Proctor, R. W. (2011). Handbook of human factors in Web design. Boca Raton: CRC Press Source document

Relationship between philosophy and science

Relationship between philosophy and science The essence of philosophy lies in know thyself as Greek philosopher Socrates defined his motto of life. Indeed, this search for self identity arose when human race first experienced consciousness in the course of evolution. So, it may be argued that philosophy (which comes from the Greek word, phileÃÆ'Â ®n, which means to love) is as old as the very beginning of human civilization.If we analyze the works of great ancient philosophers, for example, Aristotle and Plato, then it will reveal that their scientific attempt was also significant. In fact, they were the predecessors of modern science. Until the medieval ages, the separation between philosophy and science (which comes from a Latin word for knowledge) was not distinctive. However, due to stubbornness of the church controlled society in Europe the severe conflict between science and theology was set off, especially during 17th century, when the era of historical unfriendliness between philosophy, and science began. During this time, due to fast development of science, the independence of science from philosophy became clear. Unlike theology both philosophy and science follow logical methods to gather knowledge. However, the methods they use are a lot different. Philosophy naturally highlights on a biased mould in gaining knowledge as it states the importance of an individual in the universe as well as in the society. On the other hand, science concentrates on the realistic world and tries to find out relationships among measurements of various facts in the real world. Science and philosophy are very different things. Science tells us the facts of the universe, where philosophy helps us interpret them. I think that there is certainly a mutual effect between the two, philosophy may help determine what science investigates, and science may support or prove false philosophy with factual exposure, but in many ways they do not have common characteristics. A philosophy explanation is based on reasoning and argu ments from values, whereas a scientific explanation is based on reasoning from observed facts. I find that philosophy is the reasonable, and sometimes unreasonable, search of the truth. They question what is true, how does one test that something is true, what are good ways to search for truth and how should the truth be structured? The biggest question tends to be, what is? These are all philosophical questions. Science is the study to find how things work, but must assume a certain philosophical basis. First, it must assume that what we observe is real and not imagined. Second, it must assume that what we are observing is objective and repeatable. Finally, science states that all the knowledge it gathers is testable. If I declare that something is true, then I must be able to observe something that can tell me whether or not it is true. The truly interesting fact about science is that nothing can ever be considered really true, just not falsified. Scientific theories are always ca utious, and they are always either improved upon or abandoned in favour of new ones. So then I find myself thinking, how come we are willing to live with uncertainty and constant revision in science, but demand some sort of definitive truth from philosophy? Now why is it that so many people take sides on a dispute that doesnt make much sense, rather than be pleased about what the mind can achieve through the joint efforts of two of its most familiar intellectual traditions? I think the answer here is that scientists have been made conceited in recent times by their acquired status and improved financial resources, so that they dont think they need to bother with activities that dont bring in large amounts of money in funding every year. Philosophy, on the other hand, ismuch harder to define. Generally speaking, it can be thought of as an activity that uses reason to explore issues that include the nature of reality (metaphysics), (The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. (Aristotle, 340BC)) the structure of reasonable thinking (logic), the limits of our understanding (epistemology), the meaning implied by our thoughts (philosophy of language), the nature of the moral good (ethics), the nature of beauty (aesthetics), and the internal workings of other disciplines (philosophy of science, philosophy of history, etc.). Philosophy does this by methods of study and questioning that include rational arguments. Now, it seems to me that: a) philosophy and science are two distinct activities, b) they work by different methods (observation-based hypothesis testing vs. reason-based logical analysis), and c) they inform each other in a co-dependent manner. Science depends on philosophical theories that are outside the range of experimental validation, bu t philosophical investigations should be informed by the best science available in a range of situations, from metaphysics to ethics and philosophy of mind. So when some critic for instance defends that science can start an attack on all religious beliefs, they are surrendering too much to science and too little to philosophy. Yes, science can experimentally test specific religious claims, but the best objections against the thought are philosophical in nature. The issue is can philosophy advance by itself, without the support of science? Can science work without philosophy? The answer is even though philosophy and science are now two unique areas, to achieve significant knowledge, mix together the outcomes of both domains is a must. In fact, philosophy and science have always learned from each other. Scientists filter what they observe as best they can. They hypothesize, waiting for someone to make a more sophisticated estimate. Scientists consider doubt as a condition they must li ve with. They can live with mistaken belief. For example, a scientist might see only grey squirrels all his life and conclude that all squirrels are grey. His theory is then destroyed when he sees a red squirrel. There is a difference between science as a method and the philosophy of science. Although the scientific method has origins in philosophy, people are free to use the scientific method which rejects the philosophy of science. The science of biology can be educated in a classroom without teaching the philosophy of science. Science as a method tackles experimental questions, and an individual can work at science without believing in the supernatural. The philosophy of science holds that people should limit their beliefs to that which is experimental, in other words rule out the supernatural. The philosophy of science is sceptical about matters away from the untested. The function of philosophy draws imaginary pictures of whatever we observe or feel. Philosophy should be concer ned as much with generating questions as to the finding of answers. Philosophy is biased by nature, but to be biased does not mean to be inferior. Science certainly has its qualities. It is logical and highly organized and it pays attention to the evidential truth. It has producedtechnological surprises and speeded up the materialistic progress of human civilization. It is also basically whatever can be proved independently. And whatever can be proved without bias, as at first it was known to humans in a prejudiced style. Though science has a major relevance in the world, philosophy is much broader than science. I feel that science is what questions have been objectively answered. Whereas philosophy is what could be the more and more questions and what could be all the possible answers to those more and more questions. Philosophy takes priority over science because it is philosophy which has to raise questions and then to propose answers. Science takes only the answers, out of all t he proposed answers, which can be experimentally proved by using the accessible experimental procedures. It is often said that philosophers create knowledge by simply thinking, whereas scientists create knowledge by observing. Galileos experiments about speed of falling objects having different weights as well as about the projectile motion were actually his purposeful attempts to just check the legitimacy of the previously well-known Greek philosophical views regarding these matters. In my opinion, the formation of knowledge is not the role of the scientist. To create new knowledge is actually the role of the philosopher. The role of the scientist is just to extract the objective truths out of already existing ideas. Through experimentation the scientist would bring alterations in many already existing vague philosophical ideas by setting up the exact quantitative relationships between already existing variables. There is a positive role of a scientist. He has to put into operation his advanced theories by discovering and applying new technologies. Science, without philosophical process, turns into no reasonable findings. But, philosophy, without the logical methods of science, results in nonsense. One compliments the other and both are essential to the systematic growth of knowledge. In conclusion, I believe that if a study does not pass the tests of reason, and experimentation, where practical, we have accomplished nothing. Science and philosophy both posses their own qualities and faults in unique ways. Their relationship is competitive at times but neither one would stand at the level of development they have achieved today, without the other.

Lonliness and Friendship in Of Mice And Men Essay -- essays research p

Lonliness and Friendship in 'Of Mice And Men'   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In terms of emotional stability, there is one thing in life that is really needed, and that is friends. Without friends, people would suffer from lonliness and solitude. Lonliness leads to low self-esteem and deprivation. In the novel, Of Mice And Men, by John Steinbeck, the two main themes are friendship and lonliness.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There are two main characters, George and Lennie. Lennie is a massive man with incredible strength, but has a childs mind. George is a fairly sized man who is not incredibly strong, but has good common sense. What one man lacks, the other man makes up for. It is a perfect example of how opposites attract. They are a perfect match, and that is why they have a truly great friendship.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Although, no matter how much he tries, George cannot make up for the huge gap in Lennie's mind. Lennie is so childish it is hard to believe; for example when he sees things, he wants to touch and grab them. Throughout the book, the stress of Lennie's retardation begins to weigh down on George. Because of Lennie, they are drifters. Wherever they go, Lennie gets them into trouble. At their previous location in a town called Weed, Lennie grabbed a little girls dress to feel it and soon startled the girl with his overwhelming strength. So once again George had to rescue Lennie, and they had to move on. George knew he ...

Critical Pedagogy Essay -- Teaching Education Philosophy

Critical Pedagogy The acclaimed lyricist Oscar Hammerstein once wrote, "You have to be carefully taught." Most will agree that properly educating children is essential for the good of a society. However, the best method of educating students is a much more debatable topic. What is the best way to educate a student? Is it through memorization? Discussion? Exploration? Experimentation? Through the ages many scholars, teachers, and other accredited individuals have offered their opinions on the science of teaching, or pedagogy. One such man is Henry Giroux, the author of Modernism, Postmodernism, and Feminism. In his introductory chapter to this novel, Giroux sets his principles for critical pedagogy. Among these principles is one belief that reads, "Critical pedagogy needs to create new forms of knowledge through its emphasis on breaking down disciplinary boundaries and creating new spaces where knowledge can be produced." What does this belief mean to me? In order to understand my interpretation of the principle as a whole, it is necessary to understand my interpretations of the various words and phrases that make up the rule. Take the first phrase, "†¦ to create new forms of knowledge†¦" I interpret "new forms of knowledge" as knowledge expressed in forms other than the traditional. For example, "old" forms of knowledge may be names, dates, numbers, and concrete facts that are memorized without being fully understood. On the other hand, "new" forms of knowledge may refer to abstract ideas, concepts, and theory, without definite answers. The next phrase of the principle speaks of, "†¦breaking down disciplinary boundaries†¦" I would define "disciplinary boundaries" as any boundaries or limits that prevent learning from taking pla... ...-hand. For example, no one should have to figure out on their own body that hair is flammable, or that a wet tongue will stick to a metal flagpole on a cold day. So, does critical pedagogy really need to create new forms of knowledge through its emphasis on breaking down disciplinary boundaries and creating new places where knowledge can be developed? Learning in this manner can be beneficial because the information is better understood, more fully realized, and more easily applied by the student. However, this manner of learning can also be counter-productive because the information is obtained much more slowly, and little effort is made to learn from previous research and mistakes. What is the most effective way to teach? While the best method of teaching will be under constant scrutiny, all will agree on one point. You have to be carefully taught.

Australian Government’s Opposition to Internet Filters

* The internet is the fastest growing and largest tool for mass communication and information distribution in the world. It can be used to distribute large amounts of information anywhere in the world at any time. The Australian government revealed a plan to put in place a compulsory filter on the internet to prevent access to inappropriate material. In 2011, the people of Australia and its politicians alike have expressed major concerns over this introduction of a censorship, as the vast amount of ethical and practical problems associated with this scheme are triggering the debate. Good morning, my name is Amanda and I strongly oppose the introduction of internet censorship in Australia for multiple reasons. * Firstly and most importantly, the concept of censorship opposes our basic rights as people living in a democratic society to choose what we want to be exposed to. This filter will give the government the right to choose what is or what is not appropriate for us to view based on the decisions of a couple of politicians and their own individual beliefs. How can we be completely sure that the filter will not be taken advantage of to give support to the politicians own interests or that they will not add content to the filter that they personally disagree with? It does not give them the right to decided what is appropriate for mature adults, and it is not their business what other people access on the internet. What the politicians should be concerned about in relation to what people look at on the internet is illegal material such as child pornography, which is obviously the main priority of the filter. However, that is an issue that leads itself to my next argument. * Putting in place a filter for something such as child pornography will be unsuccessful. The government is making an attempt to block individual websites that contain illegal material, but the reality is that the internet is such a gigantic place filled with plenty of information that it is impossible to eliminate all traces of it from Australian computers. The filter would also be ineffective against peer-to-peer file sharing where child pornography can be found. This makes the filter ridiculously unnecessary for anyone who is really dedicated to viewing illegal content. To argue that internet censorship would be useful to prevent people from involuntarily coming across illegal activity is also wrong, because illegal material are not things that someone can simple Google and click on. This disgusting material such as child pornography is found in the pits of the internet where no ordinary internet user wanting to research their history assignments or socialise on Facebook would ever manage to stumble across. Australia has some of the worst broadband in the world. It is considerably slower and much more expensive than any other developed country due to the outdated and inadequate infrastructure. The introduction of a filter will slow our internet down even further, and in trials this slowing has occurred in amounts up to 86%. Anyone who has ever been frustrated by a download proceeding at snails pace would never stand for such an infuriating s ide effect of this already useless filter. It is unthinkable that such a thing could happen in a country that claims to be fortunate and free. * Those who support internet censorship in Australia, claim that it is an effective way of protecting children from the disturbing material on the internet, but as you’ve already heard, the filter is not an effective way of doing anything besides making our internet slow like a snail. Moreover, protecting children from adult content is a terrible excuse for a filter. Whatever happened to just decent parenting? It is the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children’s internet usage. It is the parents’ responsibility to ensure their children learn how to use the wealth of information on the internet responsibly. Introducing the filter teaches parents that they are not accountable for their children’s’ welfare, but the government is. A filter is not a replacement for parental supervision of young children on the internet, nor is it necessary for children mature enough to understand what they encounter. It is a false sense of security for parents who will happily criticise the government at every opportunity but are simply too lazy to supervise their own kids. Furthermore, it hardly seems logical that a filter would be enforced to protect children when the majority of Australian households don’t even have any! * One of the likely reasons why this filtering scheme has caused such debate may be the fact that virtually no one actually desires this proposal to be implemented and yet the Politian’s are continuing to enforce it down our throats. Both the Liberal party and the Greens do not support this scheme and the idea infuriates numerous Australians. This is evident through the petitions and discussions made by outraged Australians attacking the idea of a compulsory filter on the internet. The Labor party are the only people who truly support the plan and some family-orientated groups are also encouraging it as they have children, but they are forgetting the reality that there are many citizens without kids. The main reason this proposal hasn’t been completely discarded yet is because the Labor party is determined that we as Australians require this for our own benefit, regardless of the number of countless people that disagree with it. The fact that our own government will not take into account the opinions of the people that are actually affected by their ideas is extremely alarming. Despite being almost universally condemned by the public, ISPs, State Governments, Media and censorship experts, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is determined to force this filter into your home. What we want to avoid is to degraded into an almost autocratic-like system of government similar to countries like China, Iran and North Korea where internet censorship is extensive. * Ill conclude by saying that the internet censorship in Australia is not an effective way of blocking out illegal material from Australia computers. It is doing nothing more than making our internet cumbersome and sluggish. It is not the government’s job to babysit our nation, Thank you