Consumer Behaviour Analysis Of Holmes Institute

Consumer behavior

Students consider many factors when choosing an institution. There are different preferences when to comes to institutions. This has created a lot of competition in different institutions. The finding of consumer behavior among students will help an institution to beat the competition by other institutions by improving on its marketing skills (Kardes et al. 2011). In this case, these findings will be of great help to Holmes Institute in making its future marketing strategy.

Holmes Institute in Australia is the best education provider and has recently attracted many students in Australia, and some from overseas due to its wide ranges of education it offers (Australian Universities Quality Agency 2011). However, every student has reasons behind choosing this institution, as their choice of study. This report seeks to explore on the findings of the student behavior and analysis on the same.

According to Gibbs (2007), he states that students have various factors in choosing higher institutions, but a guarantee of future employment is the most crucial of them all. There are various reasons that students choose an institution. Some of these factors include institutional attributes, cost, student ability, the reputation of the institute and geographical location (Wanke 2015). Researchers have established consumer behavior models in order to determine how students choose which institution to enroll. In learning about student behavior, Simmons (2007) used the SNG model, which is named after tits founders to determine the consumer behavior in students in making college choices.

Diagram 1: SNG model representing the values affecting the consumer behavior.

The developers of this model (Sheth et al. 2010), portrayed market choice behavior to be dominated by five values: social value, conditional value, emotional value, functional value and epistemic value. The social value in the context of the student behavior is portrayed when a student chooses a college because of the social image the student has of that college.  The conditional value is when a student’s choice of the college is because of a situation at hand. For instance, if no other college is nearby. The emotional value, on the other hand, is when a student chooses a college if it steers negative or positive emotions in him or her. The functional value in the market choice behavior is the degree in which a service or product meets a basic need for a student. Finally, the epistemic value is when a service or product is able to satisfy a consumer’s need for knowledge or be able to provide new happenings to them. For instance, in student behavior, a student chooses a college if it is able to meet their curiosity needs in knowledge.

In this report, on consumer (student) behavior in Holmes Institute, the instrumentation to be used was partitioned into two. The first tool in the survey was to gather the students’ demographic information, in general. The second tool, involved, a number of questionnaires, where students were to tick answers showing which factors influenced their choice to Holmes Institute. This was characterized by psychographic characteristics by the students. The survey was to be carried in a group of fifty students in Holmes Institute.

Instrumentation

The collection of data took place in three weeks’ time. There were fifty questionnaires distributed to the students in Holmes institutes. The students took a period of two days to feel these questionnaires. The first twenty-five questionnaires were distributed to twenty-five students who had just joined the institution. The remaining twenty-five questionnaires were distributed to students who had been in the institution for more than two years.  Forty questionnaires were returned and had been fully completed. These questionnaires were viable for an 85% response rate.

From the data gathered in the survey, it was analyzed on both demographic and psychographic characteristics. The demographic information gathered from the Holmes students were of the following characteristics, gender, the location from home, GPA scores in high school and the income in their families. In several findings, there were ‘no response’ answers. However, these findings were not considered in final computations. Below is Table 1, which present the gender data, gathered by the students. Most of the respondents were male.

Table 1: students’ response on gender

Gender	Frequency	Percentage
Female	15	37.5
Male	25	62.5
Total	40	100.0

There are significant differences between the females and males in Holmes Institute. More males considered Holmes because it was located in the city than did female students.  Males also considered Holmes to be very important, due to the successful graduates who have been in the organization but females did not use this as part of making choices.

On the GPA scores in high school, responses given by students are stipulated in Table 2. Three students did not respond on their GPA scores. GPA scores were based on how the student performed in high school.

Table 2: students’ response on GPA scores in high school

GPA scores	Frequency	Percentage
High scores /above 70	27	67.5
Low scores/ below 65	10	25.0
No response	03	—
Total	40	92.5

On the GPA scores, those with high GPA scores considered Holmes environment to be friendly and calm while those with lower GPA scores did not. The high scoring students were more positive about the education they were getting in the institution as compared to those with low GPA scores.

The table below presents the responses provided by students on location from their homes. A majority of the students indicated they come from Melbourne city.

Table 3: students’ responses on their locations at home

Location	Frequency	Percentage
Melbourne	23	57.5
Sydney	10	25
Brisbane	07	17.5
Total	40	100.0

 A majority of the students in Holmes said that they choose Holmes because it was located near their homes. Although this was not a major aspect to be considered, it was rather neutral because the institution is comprised of international students as well.  Its weight was around 1% in making choices (Bradford et al 2014).

On their family incomes, students gave the following responses presented in Table 4. Most families earn from $20000-50000.

Table 4: students’ response on their family incomes

Australian dollar	Frequency	Percentage
20000 or less	05	12.5
20000-50000	16	40
50000-80000	12	30
80000 or more	07	17.5
Total	40	100.0

The family income was also a neutral demographic factor in students’ choices in choosing Holmes as an institution. Most students argued that whatever their family earned was not a major factor in their choice of the school.  As long as the students are able to raise the cost of learning, they believe their family income; dos do not determine their choices in colleges,

Data collection

The above are the demographic factors, which determine the student choice in Holmes Institute. Some are neutral to the behavior of students while others portray high percentages when considered by students in making choices (Martins, Yusuf and Swanson 2012).

Psychographic factors involve consumers using their lifestyle activities, interests, attitudes, lifestyles, and personal opinions to determine market behavior and choices (Gunter and Furnham 2014). In terms of the psychographic factors that affect the choice of students in Holmes Institute, they fall under the values in the SNG model. Students were required to fill in the questionnaires in the form of answers in terms of each SNG value. For instance, on the functional value; there are various factors considered by students; the good academic reputation of the organization, social activities provided by the institution, friendly atmosphere, an academic institution that takes into consideration students concern, guaranteed graduation and quality education offered.  The following factors were listed in order of importance. On the emotional value, the students’ interest in the Institute, lead to them choosing Holmes. Other factors in the psychographic factors include the student ‘s personality. A majority of students indicated that they choose Holmes because there were interested in learning the English language and engaging in the various wide range of activities offered at Holmes Institute.  On the aspect of motivation, most students choose Holmes Institute, due to the self-drive to take a higher education program for future employment. A less number indicated the lack of motivation in choosing the institution. A third of the students that per took the survey responded that they choose Holmes Institute based on their attitude towards the institution. They viewed this organization as one of the best education providers in Australia. This attitude towards the organization, made them make that choice. Only a fifth of the total students who participated in the survey said that they did not use psychographic factors in choosing Holmes Institute. Lifestyle is another aspect that surfaced in the responses raised by students in Holmes, where a quarter of the responses indicated that the choice to be in Holmes was influenced by the lifestyle of their families. A majority of the responses from the students indicated that most students choose Holmes from the opinions from other people. Opinions from outsiders and the media on Holmes institutes has contributed to almost 80% of the choices made by the students.

Conclusions

From the analyses made from this study, the following conclusions are made from the findings. The most important characteristics associated with Holmes Institute when students are making choices are opinions from the media and third parties, the good reputation of the institution and a friendly and open atmosphere. However, characteristics such as self-motivation, the size of the Institute and the distance from home to be the least characteristics used in choosing to be in Holmes. Another aspect considered to have a neutral effect on choices is the consumption values. The findings on choices by Holmes students was similar to other student surveys done, in most aspects.  A college near a city and one with a good reputation in academics were quite very influential when students made the choices; this is according to a study by Frank et al. (2013).

There are various recommendations made from this study in Holmes Institute. These recommendations when applied could have a positive impact on Holmes Institution. They include:

1.    Holmes Institute should use this results to implement new marketing strategies in order to be able to accommodate all the needs of current students and potential students
2.    The management and administrators of Holmes institution should take the results of the students’ responses in this study to identify the weaknesses and strengths of the business. The institute could make it useful for enhancing the strengths of the company and improving on the weaknesses present.
3.    This institute should use this survey results to target more on female students as the target potential students in future. This will increase the number of female students in Holmes Institute.

References.

Australian Universities Quality Agency, 2011, Report of an audit of Holmes Institute. Melbourne, Australian Universities Quality Agency.

Bradford, D Courtemanche, CJ Heutel, G Mcalvanah, PS & Ruhm, CJ  2014, Time preferences and consumer behavior. Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w20320.

Belk, RW 2010, Research in consumer behavior. Vol. 12 Vol. 12. Bingley, Emerald. Available athttps://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=348458.

Franck, MR Reider, J Morgan, JV & Springer, SP 2013, Admission matters: what students and parents need to know about getting into college. San Francisco, Calif, Jossey-Bass. Available at https://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1221735.pwelp

Gibbs, P 2007, Special issue: Marketing of higher education, 1st symposium of the Academy of Marketing special interest group, Cyprus 2006. New York, NY, Elsevier.

Gunter, B & Furnham, A 2014, Consumer Profiles (RLE Consumer Behaviour): an introduction to psychographics. Florence, Taylor, and Francis.

Kardes, FR Cline, TW & Cronley, ML 2011, Consumer Behavior: Science and practice. Mason, OH, Cengage Learning, Inc

Martins, JM Yusuf, F & Swanson, DA. 2012, Consumer demographics and behavior: markets are people. Dordrecht, Springer.

Martins, JM Yusuf, F & Swanson, DA 2011, Consumer Demographics and Behaviour. Dordrecht, Springer. Available at https://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=885970

Menon, ME Terkla, DG & Gibbs, P 2014, Using data to improve higher education: research, policy, and practice. Available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-794-0.

Wa?Nke, M 2015, Social psychology of consumer behavior. Prentice-Hall.