Alvin Saracho Edited Thesis

Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private School in Tanauan: Basis
for Marketing Strategy
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate School

Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master in Business Administration
April, 2018.
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page ii
APPROVAL SHEET
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master in Business

Administration, this Thesis entitled “Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a
Private School in Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy” has been prepared by
Saracho for approval and acceptance.
DR.
JOY C. ASHIPAOLOYE
Thesis
Adviser
PANEL OF REACTORS
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree
Master in Business Administration with a grade of ____________.
DR. FLORA V. JAVIER

Chairman
Dr. Francis Ashipaoloye Dr. Noel Huevos

Member Member
Accepted and approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree
Master in Business Administration.
Comprehensive Examination _____________ Date: _______________
Dr. FRANCIS KAYODE ASHIPAOLOYE

Dean, Graduate School.
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page iii
Abstract
Title: Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private
School in Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy.
Author: Alvin Siman Saracho
Degree: Master in Business Administration
School: Lyceum of the Philippines University- Batangas
School Year: 2016-2018
Adviser: Dr. Joy C. Ashipaoloye
With the progress of corporate brands in the Philippines and their
participation in international markets, brands have turned from business circles to
the educational world, and the era of educational brand operations has arrived.
Universities and colleges have gradually become business operations with their
students as the customers. Student satisfaction has thus become important in
academia.
The major purpose of this study is to set DMMC Institute of Health Sciences
on a specific course in marketing specifically in terms of introducing to the
community the quality of education which the institution is offering to its clienteles.
This study would also like to bridge the gaps related to goals of marketing generally
align with broader clear and strategic objectives. DMMC Institute of Health
Sciences looks to grow, as a well-established educational institution, that is why

Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page iv
through this research, a marketing plan that emphasizes strategies to increase
customer base will be proposed at the end of this study.
Descriptive method of research was utilized. Participants were the 100
Grade 11 and 12 students for assessing brand image (expectation) and 100 college
students for evaluating student satisfaction (perception). The participants of the
research were randomly selected irrespective or their rank and/or file. The
researcher used G*Power 3.1.9 to determine the sample size. Using an effect size
of 0.5, confidence interval of of 95% and power size of 95%, the computed sample
size is 178 for all the group.
Significant result revealed majority of the incoming college students were
between 18 years old and below, while for the college students, majority were 19 –
21 years old, mostly female and both incoming and college students were divided
equally in terms of educational attainment. In terms of employment of parents,
mostly were employed followed by unemployed and OFW.
Responsiveness and empathy got the highest rank for expectation while
assurance and tangibles were the top rankers for perception. Tangibles and
assurance occupied the lowest rank for expectation while reliability and empathy
were the lowest in terms of perception.
There is no significant difference in assessment on brand image
(expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and
empathy when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of
parent. There is significant difference in assessment on brand image (expectation)

Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page v
in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy when
grouped to educational level.
There is no significant difference in difference in assessment on customer
satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance
and empathy when grouped to age, sex and employment of parent. There is
significant difference in assessment on student satisfaction (expectation) in terms of
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy when grouped to
educational level.
It is important for the school brand managers that they should think
strategically regarding how they can improve and strengthen identification of their
brands which will lead to student/customer satisfaction. School brand managers
therefore should monitor continuously the potential and existing concerns and
needs of students in order to understand their interests and necessities, developing
suitable services in order to improve the brand equity.
To sustain the brand image, school leaders need to recruit, and retain
trained faculty and provide infrastructure facilities. The school can also utilize social
media for continuous communication toward strategic brand enhancement. The
school needs to continue researching on brand image and student satisfaction and
others so as to be aware of the factors which influences the market in any giving
time and place, this continuity will help gather more information and therefore
position the school in a good and sound position to judge and strategize when
planning.
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page vi
There is a need to improve and develop a marketing plan which will focus on
strengthening reliability and empathy in order to win student satisfaction and further
enhance factors related to tangibles, assurance and responsiveness. In terms of
brand image, a marketing plan should also focus on maintaining strategically
planned programs on responsiveness and empathy since these factors sustain the
positive image of the school.
Additional research is needed to fully understand how satisfaction arises
among all students. Different groups of people might have different opinions on the
service quality of the educational units. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the
differences among the different groups that are involved in the service-delivering
process. Thus, considerably more work is required to explore the factors used to
judge brand image and service quality.
Keywords: brand image, student, customer satisfaction, marketing
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page vii
The author first and foremost, would like to thank God, his wife,his Family
and friends, and his professors, Dr. Joy C. Ashipaoloye his Thesis adviser, Dean of
Graduate School Dr. Francis Ashipaoloye and Members of the Panel especially Dr.
Flora V. Javier.
DEDICATION
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page viii
This Thesis is dedicated to God, my wife, my family and DMMCIHS.
Saracho
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page ix
Table of Contents
Title Page
Title Page………………………………………………………...………..
Approval Sheet……………………………………………………………
Abstract……………………………………………………………………
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………
Dedication…………………………………………………………………
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………
List of Tables………………………………………………………………
List of Appendices………………………………………………………
Chapter 1
Introduction ………………………………………………………
Objectives of the Study ………………………………………
Literature Review………………………………………………
Chapter 2
Method …………………………………………………………
Research Design………………………………………………
Participants of Study…………………………………………
Data Gathering Instrument……………………………………
Data Gathering Procedure……………………………………
Data Analysis…………………………………………………
Chapter 3
Results and Discussion………………………………………
Conclusion………………………………………………………
Recommendation………………………………………………
References………………………………………………………
Appendices
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page x
List of Figures
Figures Title Page
1 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of age
2 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of age
3 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of gender
4 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of gender
5 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of educational

level
6 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of program
7 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of employment

of parents
8 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of age
9 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of employment of

parents.
List of Tables
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page xi
Tables Title Page
1 Reliability analysis
2 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of tangibles
3 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of reliability
4 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of
responsiveness
5 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of assurance
6 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of empathy
7 Summary table for the assessment on brand image (Expectation)
8 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of tangibles
9 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of reliability
10 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of
Responsiveness
11 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of assurance
12 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of empathy
13 Summary table for the assessment on student satisfaction (Perception)
14 Differences in the assessment on brand image and student satisfaction
In terms of tangibles when grouped into profile variables
In terms of reliability when grouped into profile variables
In terms of responsiveness when grouped into profile variables

Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page xii
In terms of assurance when grouped into profile variables
In terms of empathy when grouped into profile variables
19 Relationship between assessment on brand image and students
Satisfaction
List of Appendices
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page xiii
Appendix
A Questionnaire
B Statistical Output
C Curriculum Vitae
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page 1
INTRODUCTION
With the progress of corporate brands in the Philippines and their
participation in international markets, brands have turned from business circles
to the educational world, and the era of educational brand operations has
arrived. Universities and colleges have gradually become business operations
with their students as the customers. Student customers’ satisfaction has thus
become important in academia. Universities have to pay attention to student
satisfaction (Elliott & Shin, 2012). Brand is the quality constructed by long-term
efforts and scientific exploration, and it has become the key to acquiring
customer loyalty as well as long-term survival and development for firms.
Educational institutions are no exception. Corporate brand image is the
indicator of the enhancement potential of the original customers’ intention to
approach organizations (Mazzarol, 2010). Brand is the important connection
between firms and consumers and it significantly influences customers’
purchase decision-making and judgment. In the current competitive market of
school recruitment, for schools, brands are the external symbols. In university
education in the Philippines, in order to enhance competitiveness and with
limited educational resources, institutes are now based on the concept of
business operations, and they use value marketing and performance to
establish a brand image and attract more prominent students. Successful
corporate brands can lead to outputs for firms. High-quality school brands will
enhance the material and human resources of schools. For universities, brand
image is critical. The brand image of public universities is superior to that of

private universities; however, in the Philippines, there are more private
universities than public universities. Students tend to study in public universities
with a better brand image. In recent years, the number of higher education
institutes in the country has increased; however, the number of freshmen has
decreased. Also, the biggest drop in enrollment occurs during the freshman
year, most universities find it essential to focus retention efforts on first year
students (Tompson & Brownlee, 2013). Students in universities are becoming
more consumer oriented than ever before. Private universities with inferior
brand images are encountering the challenge of a competitive market. The
students are the most important focus in a school, and how to strengthen
students’ intention to study is an important issue for higher education institutes.
When school operating conditions are similar, people will not distinguish
schools through their external characteristics. A unique brand image is what
schools need to convey to student customers. Educational brand image thus
influences the selection of students, parents and society.
The DMMC Institute of Health Sciences is an institution of higher
learning located in the City of Tanauan, Province of Batangas. It was founded
in August 2002 and was originally named Health Educators Incorporated to
address the need for a learning institution devoted to training new allied health
professionals. After filing for a change of name with the Philippine SEC it is now
known as DMMC Institute of Health Sciences. The institute first offered
Caregiver Course and later added B.S. Nursing Program in 2003. It gradually
increases the number of courses offer by starting to offer BEEd and BSEd in
2004, Bio-Medical Equipment Technology, B.S. Physical Therapy, Radiologic
Technology & Occupational Therapy in 2006, Psychology and Business
Administration in 2009. Moreover, it was originally located at the Estella
Mercado Medical Plaza of the Daniel O. Mercado Medical Center in 2004. It
has moved to its current campus is located at 143 Narra St. Mt. View Subd.,
Tanauan City, Batangas in 2007.
The major purpose of this study is to set DMMC Institute of Health
Sciences on a specific course in marketing specifically in terms of introducing
to the community the quality of education which the institution is offering to its
clienteles. This study would also like to bridge the gaps related to goals of
marketing generally align with broader clear and strategic objectives. DMMC
Institute of Health Sciences looks to grow, as a well-established educational
institution, that is why through this research, a marketing plan that emphasizes
strategies to increase customer base will be proposed at the end of this study.
Objectives of the Research
This study describes Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private
School in Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy.
More specifically, it describes the profile variables of respondent in terms
of age, gender, educational level and employment profile of parents. It
determines Brand image (expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Also to determine the student
satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,

assurance and empathy. Furthermore, to determine the difference between
Brand Image and Customer Satisfaction when grouped to profile variables. To
test the relationship between brand image and student satisfaction when
grouped into profile variables. Lastly a proposed marketing program to further
boost enrollment and marketing aspect was tabled.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Brand Image
Brand image is very significant in the field of marketing. Through brand
image, clients foresee service and product excellence, improve buying behavior
and always remember the good quality in their mind. Similarly, brand image
conveyed by schools is an important factor when students select a school.
When a school possesses a positive school brand image, students can
distinguish the variances among schools and develop their own choice. Park,
Jaworski, and MacInnis (2010) developed three concepts of image. The first
concept is the functional brand image. It is used to explain consumers’
peripheral usage of demands. It means the school provides services that
satisfies the students’ functional needs and answers all related problems
related to services availed by the students. It includes the school tangibles such
as building facilities and equipment, ecological resources and teaching of the
school program or course. The second concept is the symbolic brand image. It
aims to bridge persons with definite clusters. Symbolic brand image can satisfy
the students’ promotion of one’s ability and skills, improvement of societal

roles, coordination in cluster associations and development of self-esteem.
Moreover, it is a public image awareness related to community, instructional
and human resources. The experiential brand image intends to gratify students’
inner search of enthusiasm and varied necessities. It highlights the fulfilment
with the school brand and the encouragement outcome of perception. It
denotes to the appearance acuity related to the knowledge understanding,
informative involvement and life understanding. Brand image is in the students’
reminiscence and is the connotation with the brand. It is accepted to conclude
or keep the apparent class of goods and services, and it signifies all the data of
the services and product. Thus, students conclude several kinds of supposed
value.
Brand is not just the merchandise or service itself with a mark or any
representation; rather, it is an impression that transforms services and product
into somewhat of worth and significance (Haltch, 2013). It offers exclusivity,
and it is the distinguishable features that one can connect to the precise kind.
The brand occurs to a huge level due to students, in particular trustworthy
clients - it is not only the association that sorts up a trademark. This is
established by Jacoby et. al (2015) who believes that the brand is known by the
students’ understanding and service appreciation and that the brand
continuously meets to bring significance. It is essential that the school
understands the students’ awareness of its brand.
In order to achieve resilient trademark, brand consciousness is of high
significance. Students must feel that the school should always at their back not
only in terms of academics but in terms of their holistic development. School
should let the students feel that there is a compassion and understanding in
times that they need assistance in all forms of curricular and extra-curricular
endeavors. (Kotler et. al, 2010). Brand awareness is formed by the
understanding of the brand, the student should be visible to it constantly, for
instance, ad promotions. Nevertheless, it is significant to footnote that a brand
progresses above period, and can be separated into stages of development
(Gray e. al., 2013). For recently recognized schools, there are three stages
predominantly fascinating. At the primary stage, the brand proprietor pursues to
show its uniqueness; in the form of diverse tags that can be related with the
institution. At the next stage, the brand owner intends to offer the students with
an idea of variation. The brand pursues to create an anticipated awareness in
the attention of the students. Lastly, at the last stage, the brand need to create
an expressive association with its students to develop a eminent substitute.
Curtis e. al. (2010) claimed that an educational group with a resilient
trademark, evidently linked with precise reimbursements, can fascinate high-
value workforces. This is approved in the study of Cornut et. al. (2012) which
stated that solid brand does not only value a faculty through enticing students.
In a marketplace where schools are contending over students it can also have
the prospective of enticing the finest students accessible.
Cheung et. al. (2012) believed that a resilient brand is appreciated for a
school subsequently it can offer the institution with benefits such as clear
school wide emphasis, developed limits, profound students’ faithfulness and a

advanced accomplishment degree with an innovative product and services
promotions. An individual must understand the significance of having a vibrant
emphasis through the group and make sure that emphasis is not only placed at
the upper administration, but also that it is consistent in diverse points of the
educational group. Then, the administration’s understanding of the brand will
misplace its emphasis in the other portions of the institute and the institution
might not connect it consistently to the students. Henceforth, the uniqueness of
the brand will not be the identical through the school.
Richins (2017) explained that a brand aids the students to differentiate
one proposal from another. A brand is what the school generates for the
students, and it is what the students want to see and expect from the school.
Seeing at the brand from these twofold standpoints, researcher within the part
have separated it into two main perceptions: brand identity and brand image,
which are two thoroughly connected ideas, and Oliver (2017) said that this can
root them to be diverse when combined. The variance between them is that
brand identity denotes to how the brand holder desires the brand to be
accepted, and brand image is how students see the brand.
Brand image in a school set up can comprise of characters, aids, ideals,
diversity, and temperament; it can be understood as everything the brand
owner wants the students’ to subordinate with the brand (Pate, 2017). Swan et.
al. (2017) explained that brand identity is what the trademark stands for, what
provides it value, and what makes it exceptional; it is the brand’s impression.
Jevons (2016) highlights that brand identity is to be realized as the basis for a
brand and that it should replicate the brand’s essential principles. Brand identity
comprises features such as image, goal, and idea of diversity, standards and
symbol of gratitude. Aaker (2016) delivers another aspect of brand identity and
clarifies how it can be equal to the fundamentals of the school but also how it
can be stretched to embrace significance adding standpoints. The brand image
represents the rudimentary features that will be passed on with the brand over
time. However, he further claims that brand identity should not be measured
motionless, but should be exposed to modification if required. It should
replicate its anticipated connotations, but also its lasting potentials and aids,
protuberant or not. According to Aaker (2016), physical equipment and facilities
were mainly trademarks of one’s school brand image. It really captured the
visual attraction of the students the reason why there will appreciate and enroll
in a particular school. When they see any collaterals or brochures which
markets the school, they visually appreciate the institution based on the
appearance or uniform of both employees and students particularly the actual
presence of the facilities.
The brand image in academe involves two parts; the central character
and the prolonged distinctiveness (Brown et. al., 2016). The central character is
extremely significant for both the significance and accomplishment of the
brand. It is the brand’s depth and should include the basics making the brand
appreciated and exclusive. The central character of a resilient brand remains
unaffected over time, irrespective of variations in the brand positioning and
statement approaches. The prolonged distinctiveness is fewer determined to

modification; it can and should be altered. It should be documented though,
that just because it can be altered it is not of less significant for the brand than
the central character. The prolonged distinctiveness covers the brand behavior,
which enhances on the particulars revealing what the brand stand for, and
offers the brand with texture and wholeness. The Identity Structure Model
brought forward by Bansal et. al. (2016) is introduced in order to provide two
different dimensions of brand image of a school.
The brand image in school can be clarified as how the students observe
the brand. It is significant on how learners make their selections after getting
data about the specific brand and choices (Alessendri, 2013). Brand image in
school is shaped through three varied inductive procedures: marketing
communication, consumption experience and social influence. Due to
increased competitions of school, it becomes interesting for vendors to uphold
a resilient connection between the students and the brand (Bruyn et. al., 2017).
For a school to be able to produce solid brand despite the spoken
difficulties, the brand identity and brand image needs to be combined, in order
to figure a lifelong connection between the brand and the students (Chapleo,
2010). Davis (2017) explained that the brand vendor should struggle to make
the brand image reflecting the brand identity. If the brand image and brand
identity are not consistent it suggests that there is an issue and that the school
need to deliberate and correct it. It is vital to recognize any problem between
the two and close it by participating them. Failure to do this effectively could
cause a major hindrance for the school in their marketplace and upset the
brand in a way that might be hard to restore; for example losing their faithful
students. (Cornelissen et. al., 2017).
If a brand agonizes from deprived brand image and frail brand identity it
is considered a ‘Lame horse’, which will encounter disappointment in the
marketplace (Davis, 2017). The school might need to return to their starting
point and find alternatives in the way they communicate their brand identity, in
order for brand identity as well as brand image to be strong.
An outstanding brand image but a frail brand identity results in the brand
being a ‘Dark horse’. The ‘Dark horse’ has receipt and possible but needs to
interconnect broadly with the students, misusing their outstanding brand image
in order to get free of the frail brand identity (De Chernatony, 2012). A brand
with resilient brand identity but a poor brand image is referred to as a ‘Blind
horse’. This is not a promising spot for long-run existence and achievement
(Dobson, 2010). The school needs to further interconnect the brand identity in
order to build trustworthiness in the minds of their students; they need to create
trust. If a brand has exceptional brand image and solid brand identity it is a
‘Jackpot’. Here, a high level of trust exists between the students and the school
organization (Dobson, 2010). Therefore, a school that is considered to be a
‘Jackpot’ has countless probable to magnificently increase, in terms of for
example service and product variety and diversity. Hence, the emphasis should
be placed on keeping and firming their brand point. (Sobel, 2012)
Brand image reflects students’ insights of a brand’s features and can be
resolute by their relations. The image refers to the way in which students’
understand all of the indications coming from the services and message
concealed by the brand. Brand images needs to transmit its service into its
unique positioning and benefits. (Fornel and Larcker, 2010). A constructive and
renowned image is an advantage to all schools because the image is a
influential acquisition influencer that affects the students’ perception of the
school and its statement. A brand has numerous brand images. First is to look
for the image which is prevailing and include it into communication. (Robertson,
2016) Brand image has four purposes; brand image connects prospects, it
influences the awareness of a school undertakings, brand image is a result of
students’ involvements as well as their outlooks and it touches the school
within. (Flowerdew, 2014)
Brand image interconnects opportunities through marketing promotions
such as advertisement, individual sales and word-of-mouth announcement.
This way image straightly moves market communication. An affirmative image
makes it easier for schools to connect more competently and makes the
students more vulnerable to constructive word-of mouth. (Wirtz and Chew,
2012). Brand image effects the awareness of a schools’ activities through
practical and useful quality. If the image is respectable, irregular difficulties
become fewer significant and the image functions as a fortification. But this
defense can have an conflicting result. When the image is undesirable an
increasing disappointment occurs among the students. When students make
outlooks and knowledge practical and useful quality the qualified quality may
alter the image. (Jarvis, 2011) If the knowledgeable quality is equal to the
image, or surpasses it, the image will be reinforced or enhanced. But if the
school does not prosper to bring the experienced image the effect will be the
contradictory. If the image is unclear it will gain decipherability through
students’ experiences. (Eriksson et. al., 2010)
When the image is uncertain it affects students’ attitudes towards the
school and the whole school organization. This can lead to a undesirable
impression on students’ choice of school and their involvement which affects
quality and their association with the other students. A constructive and
intelligible image will fortify students’ positive attitudes for their school. Image is
created on the basis of two variables, individual and unintended
understandings. The school should be consistent enough when they deal with
students, they should do what they say, stick faithfully with what is executed or
enforced and tell precise information at all times (Baron and Kenny, 2016)
The most important aspect of the brand image trap is that there is a
clear difference between a brand image and a brand identity and they have to
be distinguished from one another. A brand image means the public’s
conception of the brand, or in other words, how students and the public
perceive the brand. A brand image can provide useful and important
information when a company is developing a brand identity. (Baker and Balmer,
2013)
According to Balmer (2013), brand image is a combining look that has a
numerous connotation. There is a difference between business identity and
community affirming that structural identity is a scheme of common sense while

social identity refers to assumed information. As for brand image, it is seen
equal to a projected image of a school organization. Its focus is mainly on
peripheral, figurative proportions of image. Social image, on the other hand, is
defined as connecting a rational structure and core identity processes of
individuals within an organization, and organizational identity as a combination
of internal and external aspects of identity.
Business identity and brand is been examining its qualities in profitable
organization, but Chapleo (2010) says that in terms of higher education there
has been a inadequate academic consideration in business. Pinar et al. (2011)
stated that in order to make tougher outline, branding effort should not be
incomplete to student product only. This study was supported by Balmer and
Gray (2013) and de Chernatony (2012) saying that business level brand will
also accessible even to non-marketable organization.
According to Balmer and Gray (2013), the necessity for business
branding might not be very resilient including universities and not just for the
public sector only, it most certainly is. Curtis et al. (2010) give highlight into the
importance of brand and distinguishing identity in higher education, in fact as to
them imperceptibility and inseparability plays crucial in the field of education
service. Bulotaite (2013) suggests that in terms of intricacy, universities and
colleges must have the distinguishing like this and it can be shorten by the help
of labeling. This is supported by Jevons (2016) who upholds that for the
advantage of current and prospective students and staff, universities should
progress evocatively distinguished brands to connect their assets.

Branding higher education can be combined into a broader inclination of
marketing and branding entities that are non-viable by their very nature
(Fairclough 2010). Fairclough (2010) notes a deep alteration in public services
and institutions: they have begun to look like merchandises. Along with this
change, public institutions such as universities have stimulated closer to the
frugality. As a result, advertising dialogue has been settling community spheres
which were previously unconnected to the economy. During the previous
periods, branding research has observed a cumulative quantity of researches
focusing on branding such entities as countries, regions, cities and public
institutions (Balmer and Gray 2013). Fairclough (2012) believes that the current
changes affecting higher education are a typical example of the processes of
marketization in the public sector.
As a part of this change, branding has become a planned administrative
question for universities. The massive number of universities are opposing for
the same students, and the marketization may be regarded even essential for
the institutions to indorse their programs. (Osman 2010) According to Argenti
(2010), the noble thing in all universities that having a good brand is that it can
lessen disaster and can entice best talent. Bulotaite (2013) believes that
university brands really have the probable to create solider moods than most
brands. The key to success in this, as Bulotaite (2013) suggests, is to make an
“exclusive outgoing identity”.
Among the features that have inclined higher education branding are the
school positions which have recently become a distinct instrument for enticing
students (Bunzel 2017). Commercial school positions have increased an
important position among the schools, and top rankings are readily working
when marketing schools to potential students. As highlighted by Argenti (2010),
positions have affected business schools and their advertising positioning more
than any other trade.
According to Wolverton (2016), variation of a university organization has
to do with how universities classify themselves and the spectators they select
to serve. Schools should be responsive enough when it comes to student
apprehensions and inquiry because it will let the students feel that they are in
the center of the school’s academic and social service at all times, regardless
of the student’s status in school. Brand image investors involve distinct
electorates in the university setting. (Melewar and Akel, 2016)
The investor groups may, however, hold diverse levels of significance for
a university. As investigation and education may be considered the basic
responsibilities of a university, students and faculty are without doubt among
the most vital participants. Pinar et al. (2011) regard the student knowledge
involvement as the dynamic force for all worth formation systems in university
branding, and therefore, students are seen as the most important electorate of
a university. Education and examination represent the core value creation
activities for students’ learning experience. Further, supporting value creation
activities include student life, sports, and community activities.
As Hatch and Schultz (2013) highlight, business branding significantly
concerns the value of acceptance. In order for the students to feel that they
belong to group, the school must always assure and convince them that all the
school’s organizational activities will put them in the center of their service.
According to Balmer and Liao (2013), it can offer a life-long involvement of
students in a university. Furthermore, a resilient business brand is likely to offer
staffs with identification to the business philosophy and standards. The role of
staffs in delivering the brand values to various investors is therefore vital, and
several studies stress the significance of core branding and employees’
commitment in the branding progression. (Whisman, 2010)
Brands in the university setting have features of both creation and
business branding. As Pinar et al. (2011) suggest, a university might be
understood providing students with a variety of informative products and
services. Following this, students may be regarded as clienteles whose
involvement is in the core of the branding (Pinar et al. 2011). Other studies, on
the contrary, see the school name and values connected at the corporate level
the most defining aspect of fascination towards a university. With this,
university brand is not just only upon positioning of the students but also by
handling the whole institution. In addition, (Whisman, 2010) the university
attitude forgot to look the whole standing and alteration of business level
branding strategy.
Student Satisfaction
Oliver’s (2017) views that “satisfaction is the emotional reaction following
a disconfirmation experience”. Levine (2017) states that “satisfaction is a

psychological experience of a consumer after confirmation-disconfirmation of
expectations of a specific transaction”.
Pate (2017) discussed that university students’ satisfaction with schools
during their schooling will impact their purpose to endorse the schools to others
and their intent to have progressive schooling in the same schools. When
students assess satisfaction, they will reflect on their involvement in school.
Schools can examine and develop their service quality according to the inquiry
outcomes. Schools are institutions, and effective schools should accomplish
their educational purposes. At the stage of higher education, they should
appropriately increase their educational excellence, value the instructional
development, correctly use instructional properties, create comprehensive
course preparation and increase the students’ knowledge awareness. When
the advancement of school instructional quality matches the students’ and
parents’ prospects, the students’ prospective and effectiveness will be shown.
Students who easily find a job will be refined, and this will improve the students’
satisfaction with the schools. Davis and Ellison (2017) recommended that if
students are acquainted with the school, including educational understanding,
amenities and facilities, their satisfaction with the school will rise. Therefore,
students can observe the school and reassess the service content of the
school.
Gelb and Sundaram (2012) propose that satisfaction can be either
precise for a portion of a procedure or whole for the entire school institution.
Satisfaction can be conveyed through commendations or faithfulness to the

service provider. In the extreme students will express disappointment by
swapping to the opponents. The main explanation why a student would want to
shift are the disappointment of the fundamental service provided or social
concerns like hard-hearted staff and teachers.
Gruen et.al. (2016) said that “Student satisfaction is usually recognized
as a temporary outlook causing from an assessment of a student’s instructive
involvement. Student satisfaction fallouts when definite presentation
encounters or surpasses the student’s prospects.” The two descriptions
between student satisfaction in general and student gratification are very
parallel because they refer to immediate nature of specific operations or
proceedings. (Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2017)
Student satisfaction is significant because it has result on economic
presentation of a business as shown by some researches of economic services
that specified that there was a constructive connection between the amount or
proportion of corporate done with a student and that students’ satisfaction (Hu
& Bentler, 2015). Most professionals approve that there is a connection
between service quality and student satisfaction but they do not approve on the
course of the association as some propose that service quality comes
beforehand satisfaction while others say it is the other way (Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 2012). Service quality is among the elements that regulate student
satisfaction and student satisfaction can lead to student trustworthiness
(Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2017). Student trustworthiness has a
constructive impression on the economic presentation of a business (Richins,

2017). This can occur because of recommendations and improved trade from
current clienteles. Evans (2011) quotes an instance of one US University where
the application of excellent courses results to better student satisfaction. As a
result, 90% of the undergraduate students and alumni said that they are willing
to be very loyal to the school if the said institution will continue to offer positive
and satisfying services.
According to Bateson and Hoffman (2014), most professionals approve
that student satisfaction is a temporary operation that has precise portion while
service quality is a behavior shaped over a long term assessment of
performance. Elliott & Healy (2011) describe student satisfaction as temporary
outlook that leads to the assessment of a student’s scholastic involvement.
There is not much difference between the two terms because the student is just
another kind of customer who is a consumer of the education service and
therefore most of the literature on service marketing will apply.
There is a general agreement among experts that there is a connection
between service quality and student satisfaction but what is not clearly
explained is the course of this connection like Parasuraman et al. (2010) says
that service quality comes before student satisfaction. On the contrary
according to Biggs (2011) customer satisfaction comes before service quality.
Some recent studies in this area have also reinforced the opinion that service
quality leads to student satisfaction. A study carried out by Spreng et. al.,
(2013) showed that the five scopes of service quality have an outcome on level
of student satisfaction. Additional research was done in United Arab Emirates

on branch campuses of some international universities found that qualified
lecturers, technology and other resources had an effect on student satisfaction
(Wiers et.al., 2012). However, student satisfaction levels seemed to vary with
nationalities and programs. The researchers explained that this could probably
be because of the different cultures and backgrounds that the students come
from. They therefore recommended additional investigation in other portions of
the world as their assumptions could not be comprehensived.
Education is one of the significant factor of growing economy. Higher
education viable marketplace is increased and that is why it is important to
increase also the student satisfaction to attract and retain high achievers. They
can help to uplift the reputation of any university and that is if the students are
satisfied. It is essential to describe the idea of satisfaction and especially
student satisfaction. Wiers-Jenssen, Stensaker and Grogaard (2012) discussed
that student satisfaction is by means of evaluation of all of the services that the
university will offer. Due to recurrent collaboration, the student satisfaction in
higher education is repeatedly varying concept (Elliott and Shin, 2012). It is a
active procedure that needs perfect and operative accomplishment as an
outcome of a school attending to its students. Student satisfaction is a
multifaceted concept subjective by a selection of features of students and
institutions (Thomas and Galambos, 2014). Student satisfaction is a total
answer not only to the knowledge involvement of a student (WiersJenssen et
al. 2012).
The literature on student satisfaction and their awareness of the
scholastic involvement is very intricate. Opinions of the writers on the idea of
student satisfaction is fairly varied. Each writer has their own viewpoint about
the needs of students in the university. Some writers maintain the so called
“administrative height” of student satisfaction. The university is an initiative and
the students are the clients. In order to please students, the client attitude
should be functional in the universities.
The most provocative opinion is that of students being a client of the
university, due to the fact that universities are becoming more commercial-like.
Hill (2015) proposes that the main clients of the universities are the students,
and so Higher Education is progressively distinguishing that it is a service
productiveness and is placing better importance on accomplishing the
prospects and desires of students. One thing that helps in any university to
adjust the student’s needs is to give priority to their satisfaction by means of
creating a system that monitors if the university meets student’s needs. (Elliott
and Shin, 2012). Furthermore some researcher said that in order for the
university to become effective they need to translate in a relationship level.
(Helfert et al. 2012). Seymour (2013) discussed that the main objective of
higher education is to make their students happy and satisfied. Therefore,
concentrating on improving the student satisfaction at colleges and universities
is vital in emerging client value. Students can be observed as clients of the
universities. Thus, it is significant for the university to concentrate on its
students, and to give their prospects by giving excellent education. Lincoln

(2015) finished a research and discussed some issues that would entice
students. These included school tangibles and practicum support as some of
the important features for student satisfaction. Higher education institutions can
fascinate students by presenting state-of-the-art libraries, classrooms, computer
laboratories, and other facilities. Students devote a substantial portion of their
time using these facilities, thus giving possible chances to inspire student
satisfaction.
Haque et al. (2011) brings out some features that offer by the university
that somehow affects the satisfaction of the students. Example of this are
student research facilities, quality of teaching, spacefor group discussion and
etc. According to Spreng (2013) most previous fulfilment study has not
comprised presentation as a straight originator of satisfaction. Service
presentation has developed a vital concept in promotion study. Professors and
course content are the two factors that affect to service performance. (Mont
and Plepys 2013) said that tangible and intangible attributes depend on subject
measurement. The insubstantial nature of higher education makes it hard for
students to efficiently assess issues such as the quality of instruction, as well
as the quality of student service. The concrete features related with the
education are computers, classrooms, and library facilities.
In the article “Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian
universities”, Petruzzellis, D‟Uggento, Romanazzi (2016) observed students as
clients of universities and made the assumption that universities need to accept
a client centric methodology. They examined mutual aspects such as: lecture
halls, laboratories, equipment, library, dining hall, dormitories, leisure activities,
language courses, scholarships, internet access, exam booking, and contacts
with teachers, administrative services, tutoring, counseling, internship,
international relationship and placement.
Students have progressively started to perceive themselves as patrons
or clients of a service association, and related with this is the great prospects of
principles and competence from the educational organizations. Consequently,
student satisfaction is gradually significant. Rarely, prospects of global students
are not encountered by universities (East 2011), which may have fascinated
these students by exaggerated and enthusiastic marketing procedures. Bless
et. al. (2015) initiated that absence of satisfaction was related with inferior
version in global students. They propose that the variance between prospects
and involvements is related with total alteration: the larger the inconsistencies,
the inferior the mental and socio-cultural variation. Study displays that global
students have inferior insights of services offered by their universities than their
national complements (Sherry, Bhat, Beaver, and Ling 2014).
Student satisfaction is a multifaceted concept with numerous antecedent
and that is why some authors address several perspectives but this is not the
same in the actual student satisfaction model. (Elliott and Shin 2012). Bless et.
al. (2015) expresses a student addition philosophy of perseverance or retaining
built on the associations between students and organizations. He contends that
retaining students involves two obligations on the part of the student. The first
obligation is the aim to achieve a college degree; and the second one is the
choice to achieve that degree at a specific school. In general, the mixture of the
student’s objective and organized obligation touches retention at a specific
school. It is significant to match the student’s inspiration and scholastic
capability and the school’s capacity to meet the student prospects (Kara and
De Shields 2014).
To hold the difficulty of the knowledge involvement, it is significant to
appreciate the aspects that donate to student satisfaction. For many students,
“the method of studying not only signifies attainment of definite skills and
academic awareness; it is also connected to individual development and
community progress (Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012). By rotating the emphasis to
the program content, the issue on quality will be one of top significance (Scott
2010). According to Elliott and Shin (2012) “a university’s output is more than
its educational course. It is the amount of the student’s educational, societal,
bodily, and even divine undertakings”. Moreover, satisfaction is definitely
inclined when there is constructive insight of the quality (Anderson, Fornell and
Lehmann 2014). Finaly-Neumann (2014) determines that main forecasters of
instructional satisfaction include clearness of instructional responsibilities,
instructor response and uniqueness of instructional tasks. Biggs (2011) state
that by focusing in high quality instruction and when the university provides the
curriculum that meets the expectation of the students the high satisfaction can
be gain.
Tertiary schooling involves changes to new educational and societal
surroundings. Such needs are often more multifaceted for global students, who
have to familiarize to a new philosophy, language, educational, and societal
atmosphere (Mori 2010). Wiers-Jenssen et al. (2012) highlight that there are
some details to be careful when applying the satisfaction method in higher
education. Due to the academic conversation, satisfaction is explained in
altered ways: moods and feelings are not totally taken into explanation as
variables in the satisfaction course (Wirtz and Chew 2012). There is a variance
between organizations and subject-fields concerning the most important
student satisfaction factors (Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012). In other words,
students “need involvement with the product to regulate how satisfied they are
with it; and it is founded not only on present involvement but also all previous
experience, as well as upcoming or expected experiences” (Anderson, Fornell
and Lehmann, 2014). Wiers-Jenssen, 2012) proclaim the quality of university
support facilities is very significant in attaining student’s satisfaction. They
broke the idea down into numerous sub-categories, such as: 1. Quality of
education. 2. Quality of management and feedback from academic staff. 3.
Structure, content and relevance of course. 4. Stability between different forms
of organized teaching activities and self-tuition. 5. Quality of support facilities. 6.
Quality of physical infrastructure 7. Quality and access to leisure activities. 8.
Social climate.
Guolla (2010) conditions that “a student’s satisfaction may be subjective
by poor classroom facilities of which an instructor may have limited resources
to change”. So, the school setting can be seen as a network of related activities
that effect student satisfaction (Elliott and Shin 2012).

Thomas and Galambos (2014) examined substitute actions of overall
student satisfaction. Student satisfaction with university has separate, official
and common aids. Satisfied students are more likely to remain in their studies
and prosper scholastically, and this is likely to improve the economic situation
and standing of the school. Successful universities understand that it is very
significant to hold enrolled students rather than focus on enticing new ones.
One reason for this is because a reasonable benefit can be gained through
student satisfaction (Elliott and Shin 2012) and they can be marketed in the
university’s marketing implements. Satisfied students make actual community
affairs negotiators. Highly satisfied students involve in satisfactory word-of
mouth promotional”. Word-of-mouth from satisfied students drops the cost of
enticing new students for the university and improves the university’s complete
status, while that of displeased students has the conflicting result (Fornell et.
al., 2010). Also, they can return as graduate students, recruit potential students
or frequently contribute as alumni. The most stated relationship-building
practices are recommendations, endorsements, and visits to students’ sites by
possible clients.”
The literature on student satisfaction and student awareness of
scholastic experience is very multifaceted. Two filaments of standpoints are
apparent: the academic and the social. The writers supporting one or the other
perspective mention the factors that can affect students‟ satisfaction with their
university. Most writers highlight the significance of the same factors (Harvey,
2015) and Hill (2015). They both mention library services, accommodation
services, course content, teaching quality, catering service, academic workload
and so on. In addition, in 2001 UCC Student Services Evaluation Report
examined student satisfaction using the following categories: general climate,
admissions/records, academic advising, financial aid and awards, counseling,
assessment center, athletics, health clinic, computer labs, library, bookstore.
METHODS
Research Design
The descriptive method of research was used to gather the needed
information on brand image and student satisfaction in a Private School in
Tanauan in order to propose a marketing strategy which will increase the
number of enrollment of the chosen local of the study.
Participants of Study
Sample Frame
Participants were the 100 Grade 11 and 12 students for assessing brand
image (expectation) and 100 college students for evaluating student
satisfaction (perception). For the college students, there were six courses
engaged in the study namely Business Administration, Education, Psychology,
Medical Technology, Radiologic Technology and Physical Therapy.
The participants of the research were randomly selected irrespective or
their rank and/or file. The researcher used G*Power 3.1.9 to determine the
sample size. Using an effect size of 0.5, confidence interval of of 95% and
power size of 95%, the computed sample size is 178 for all group.
The above pie charts showed the profile of the respondents in terms of
age. For the graduating high school students, the result revealed that the age
bracket of 18 years old and below had the most number of respondents with a
frequency of 94 with a percentage of 94%. On the other hand, the age bracket
of 19 – 21 years old had the least number with a frequency of 6 with a
percentage of 6%.
Meanwhile for the college students, the age 19 – 21 years old had the
most number of respondents with a frequency of 71 and percentage of 71%. It
was followed by the age 18 years old and below with a frequency of 17 and
percentage of 17%, and 22 – 24 years old with a frequency of 7 and
percentage of 7%. The age bracket of 25 years old and above had the least
number of respondents with a frequency of 5 and percentage of 5%.
The above data was related to the study conducted by Andrews (2012),
the relationship between age and variables measuring satisfactions with
specific domains related to brand image and student satisfaction. The results
showed an increase in satisfaction of both female and male respondents with
age ranging from 18 – 21 years old. Various explanations for the relationship
were tested by multiple regression procedures, using two national surveys.
Higher religiosity of the aged, increased desire to respond in a socially
acceptable manner, and a lessening of change in life conditions appear to
contribute to higher satisfaction. Although these factors individually represent
only partial explanations, a combination of them accounts for a substantial part
of the relationship.
The above pie charts presented the profile of the respondents in terms
of sex. For the graduating high school students, the result revealed that the
most number of respondents were mainly female with a frequency of 81 and
percentage of 81%. Male respondents had a frequency of 19 and percentage of
19%.
For the college students, it was also female respondents who had the
most number with the frequency of 76 and percentage of 76%. There were 24
male respondents equivalent to 24%.
The above data was supported by the research conducted by “The Pew
Global Attitudes Project (Pew Research Center, 2003) that surveyed 38,000
men and women across 44 countries lends insight into the disparities between
male and female satisfaction of service rendered and their views regarding
brand image. Overall, women scored themselves as more satisfied with their
lives than men. Moreover, women from certain countries, including Pakistan,
Japan and Argentina, appeared significantly satisfied and had a very clear view
of what brand image is for them. The differences between what affects men
and women's levels of satisfaction and perception about brand image and
explains this slight gender gap. Women, for instance, tend to focus on the
benefits of the service and its possible impact after availing the service, while
men concern themselves more with how the service will be availed and after
which, they do not care at all whether they are satisfied or not. Moreover, men
do not care and not very particular whether the brand is known or not for as
long as it will give the kind of service which they are looking for.
This variation in values is also reflected in how the recent recession has
affected people's happiness. According to a Nielson Happiness Survey
(Nielsen, Company, 2010) conducted in 51 countries, men's happiness and
satisfaction has not weathered the economic storm well since they attach more
importance to financial success than women. On the other hand, the women
surveyed indicated they appreciated quality relationships and service rendered
above all.
The above pie charts exhibited the profile of the respondents in terms of
educational level. For the graduating high school students, both Grade 11 and
Grade 12 had a frequency of 50 and a percentage of 50%.
For the college students, there were six courses found in the answers of
the respondents. Business Administration, Education, Psychology and Medical
Technology courses had a frequency of 20 and a percentage of 20%. A
frequency of 10 and a percentage of 10% was obtained by the courses under
Radiologic Technology and Physical Therapy.

The above pie charts displayed the profile of the respondents in terms of
employment of parents. For the graduating high school students, 56 or 56%
were employed locally, 17 or 17% were unemployed, 15 or 15% were OFW, 11
or 11% were entrepreneur and 1 or 1% was retired.
For the college students, the employed locally had the most number of
respondents equivalent to 46 or 46% followed by unemployed with 20 or 20%.
There were also 17 or 17% OFW, 13 or 13% entrepreneur and lastly 4 or 4%
were retired.
According to Balamuth (2015), 60% of parents who were able to send
their children in school were those parents whose work was just near to their
children’s school or university. They chose to work and be employed locally
since they would also like to look after the condition of their child or children.
They preferred to work in the place where they can still monitor the academic
performance of their child or children and they can also prevent any behavior or
instances which can affect their schooling.
Data Gathering Instrument
The researcher has used three main data gathering instruments:
Part 1 was based on the self-made questionnaire made by the
researcher. It contained the profile of the respondents which includes the age,
gender, educational level and employment profile of the respondents.
Part 2 was a standardized questionnaire by Parasuraman as cited by
Qadri UA (2015) Measuring Service Quality Expectation and Perception using
servqual, which deals with opinions of incoming college students specifically
Grade 11 and 12. Respondents showed the extent to which they think colleges
should possess the features which they were expecting from a college or
university.
Part 3 was a standardized questionnaire which deals with current
college student’s perception regarding student satisfaction with regards to the
overall service which their school is giving them.

Table 1
Reliability Analysis
Number
Cronbach
of Interpretation
alpha value
items
Highly
Brand Image (Expectation) 0.90 22
Acceptable
Student Satisfaction Highly
0.93 22
(Perception) Acceptable
As seen from the table above, the questionnaire for Brand Image
(Expectation) and Student Satisfaction (Perception) were both highly
acceptable with 0.90 and 0.93 Cronbach alpha value.
Data Gathering Procedures
Questionnaire was used to gather information on the Brand Image
(Expectation) and Student Satisfaction (Perception). The researcher validated
the questionnaire through a trained statistician. The researcher sought the help
of the school leaders such as the principal and dean of each colleges to
distribute and retrieve the questionnaires.
Data Analysis
The researcher tallied, tabulated, encoded and analyzed the result using
the following tools: Frequency Distribution and Percentage, Weighted
Mean, T-Test and ANOVA. The researcher also used the following Likert
Scale:
Scale Verbal Interpretation

4 Strongly Agree
3 Agree
2 Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 2.1
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of Tangibles
Tangibles WM VI Rank
1. Private schools/colleges will have modern
3.36 Agree 2
looking equipment.
2. The physical facilities at private colleges will be
3.34 Agree 3
visually appealing.
3. Employees at private colleges will be neat in
3.46 Agree 1
their appearance.
4. Materials associated with the service (pamphlets
or statements) will be visually appealing at an 3.31 Agree 4
private colleges.
Composite Mean 3.37 Agree
Legend: 3.50 – 4.00 –Strongly Agree; 2.50 – 3.49 – Agree; 1.50 – 2.49 –
Disagree; 1.00 – 1.49 – Strongly Disagree
Table 2.1 showed the assessment of the respondents on brand image
(expectation) in terms of tangibles. The composite mean of 3.37 and a verbal
interpretation of “Agree” clearly indicated that the given indicators were really
the factors which the respondents were looking forward in a college or school.
Findings revealed that the indicator which had the most response was
“Employees at private colleges will be neat in their appearance.” with a
weighted mean of 3.46 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”. This was followed
by the indicator “Private schools/colleges will have modern looking equipment.”
with a weighted mean of 3.36 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree” as well.
On the other hand, the indicator with the least number of response was
“Materials associated with the service (pamphlets or statements) will be visually
appealing at an private college.” with a weighted mean of 3.31 and a verbal
interpretation of “Agree”.
The above result was related to the idea of Pate (2017) saying that
brand image in a school set up can comprise of characters, aids, ideals,
owner wants the students’ to subordinate with the brand.
Jevons (2016) highlights that brand identity is to be realized as the basis
for a brand and that it should replicate the brand’s essential principles. Brand
identity comprises features such as image, goal, and idea of diversity,
standards and symbol of gratitude. Aaker (2016) delivers another aspect of
brand identity and clarifies how it can be equal to the fundamentals of the
school but also how it can be stretched to embrace significance adding

standpoints. The brand image represents the rudimentary features that will be
passed on with the brand over time. However, he further claims that brand
identity should not be measured motionless, but should be exposed to
modification if required. It should replicate its anticipated connotations, but also
its lasting potentials and aids, protuberant or not. According to Aaker (2016),
physical equipment and facilities were mainly trademarks of one’s school brand
image. It really captured the visual attraction of the students the reason why
there will appreciate and enroll in a particular school. When they see any
collaterals or brochures which markets the school, they visually appreciate the
institution based on the appearance or uniform of both employees and students
particularly the actual presence of the facilities.
Table 2.2
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of Reliability
Reliability WM VI Rank
1. When private colleges promise to do
3.42 Agree 2
something by a certain time, they do.
2. When a customer has a problem, private
colleges will show a sincere interest in 3.39 Agree 4
solving it.
3. Private colleges will perform the service
3.40 Agree 3
right the first time.
4. Private colleges will provide the service at Strongly
3.50 1
the time they promise to do so. Agree
5. Private colleges will insist on error free
3.24 Agree 5
records.
Table 2.2 showed that assessment on brand image (expectation) in
terms of reliability. Of the listed indicators, “Private colleges will provide the
service at the time they promise to do so.” had the most number of response
with a weighted mean of 3.50 and a verbal interpretation of “Strongly Agree”. It
was followed by the indicator “When private colleges promise to do something
by a certain time, they do.” with a weighted mean of 3.42 and a verbal
interpretation of “Agree” and “Private colleges will perform the service right the
first time.” with a weighted mean of 3.40 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”.
Meanwhile, the indicator with the least answer was “Private colleges will
insist on error free records.” with a weighted mean of 3.24 and a verbal
interpretation “Agree”. The composite mean of 3.39 (Agree) evidently pointed
out that the school should be reliable enough in the delivery of their service in
order for them to continuously attract students and to have a high retention rate
as well.
The above result about reliability can be related to the notion of
Wirtz and Chew, 2012. Brand image effects the awareness of a schools’
activities through practical and useful quality. If the image is respectable,
irregular difficulties become fewer significant and the image functions as a
fortification. But this defense can have an conflicting result
According to Jarvis (2011), When the image is undesirable an increasing
disappointment occurs among the students. When students make outlooks and
knowledge practical and useful quality the qualified quality may alter the image.
Meanwhile, Eriksson et. al., (2010) said that the knowledgeable quality is equal
to the image, or surpasses it, the image will be reinforced or enhanced. But if
the school does not prosper to bring the experienced image the effect will be
the contradictory. If the image is unclear it will gain decipherability through
students’ experiences.
When the image is uncertain it affects students’ attitudes towards the
school and the whole school organization. This can lead to a undesirable
impression on students’ choice of school and their involvement which affects
quality and their association with the other students. A constructive and
intelligible image will fortify students’ positive attitudes for their school. Image is
created on the basis of two variables, individual and unintended
understandings. The school should be consistent enough when they deal with
students, they should do what they say, stick faithfully with what is executed or
enforced and tell precise information at all times (Baron and Kenny, 2016)
Table 2.3
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of
Responsiveness
Responsiveness WM VI Rank
1. The employees of private colleges will
understand the specific needs of their 3.34 Agree 4
customers.
2. Employees of private colleges will give prompt
3.36 Agree 3
service to customers.
3. Employees of private colleges will always be Strongly
3.58 1
willing to help customers. Agree
4. Employees of private colleges will never be too
3.41 Agree 2
busy to respond to customers' requests.
Table 2.3 showed the respondent’s assessment on brand image
(expectation) in terms of responsiveness. The foregoing discussion showed a

composite mean of 3.42 with a verbal interpretation of “Agree” which visibly
indicated that the school attends or responds accordingly to the needs and
inquiries of the students. Of the listed indicators, “Employees of private colleges
will always be willing to help customers.” got the most number of responses
with a weighted mean of 3.58 and a verbal interpretation of “Strongly Agree”. It
was followed by the indicator “Employees of private colleges will never be too
busy to respond to customers' requests.” with a weighted mean of 3.41 and a
verbal interpretation of “Agree”.
On the other hand, “The employees of private colleges will understand
the specific needs of their customers.” was the indicator which received the
least number of response with a weighted mean of 3.34 and a verbal
According to Wolverton (2016), variation of a university organization has
to do with how universities classify themselves and the spectators they select
to serve. Schools should be responsive enough when it comes to student
apprehensions and inquiry because it will let the students feel that they are in
the center of the school’s academic and social service at all times, regardless
of the student’s status in school. Brand image investors involve distinct
electorates in the university setting. (Melewar and Akel, 2016)
The investor groups may, however, hold diverse levels of significance for
a university. As investigation and education may be considered the basic
responsibilities of a university, students and faculty are without doubt among
the most vital participants. Pinar et al. (2011) regard the student knowledge
involvement as the dynamic force for all worth formation systems in university
branding, and therefore, students are seen as the most important electorate of
a university. Education and examination represent the core value creation
activities for students’ learning experience. Further, supporting value creation
activities include student life, sports, and community activities.
Table 2.4
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of Assurance
Assurance WM VI Rank
1. The behavior of employees in private colleges will
3.36 Agree 3
instill confidence in customers
2. Customers of private colleges will feel safe in
3.36 Agree 3
transactions.
3. Employees of private colleges will be consistently
3.38 Agree 2
courteous with customers.
4. Employees of private colleges will have the
3.45 Agree 1
knowledge to answer customers' questions.
The above table presented the assessment of the respondents on brand
image (expectation) in terms of assurance. The composite mean of 3.39 and
verbal interpretation of “Agree” undoubtedly indicated that the school should
guarantee and assure the students of whatever they tell or implement in the
institution. The indicator which acquired the highest weighted mean was
“Employees of private colleges will have the knowledge to answer customers'
questions.” equivalent 3.45 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”. It was
followed by the indicator “Employees of private colleges will be consistently

courteous with customers.” With a weighted mean of 3.38 and a verbal
“The behavior of employees in excellent colleges will instill confidence in
customers” and “Customers of private colleges will feel safe in transactions.”
received the least response and both obtained the same weighted mean of
3.36 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”.

branding strategy.
Table 2.5
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of Empathy
Empathy WM VI Rank
1. Private colleges will give customers individual
3.46 Agree 1
attention.
2. Private colleges will have operating hours
3.36 Agree 4
convenient to all their customers.
3. Private colleges will have employees who give
3.35 Agree 5
customers personal service.
4. Privatecolleges will have their customers' best
3.42 Agree 2.5
interest at heart.
5. The employees of private colleges will understand
3.42 Agree 2.5
the specific needs of their customers.
Table 2.5 showed the assessment on brand image (expectation) in
terms of empathy. It was very evident that schools and colleges should
commiserate and understand every student during their stay in school. This
was supported by the composite mean of 3.40 with a verbal interpretation of
“Agree”.
Of the itemized indicators, the item which acquired that most number of
response was “Private colleges will give customers individual attention.” with a
weighted mean of 3.46 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”. Both statements
“Private colleges will have their customers' best interest at heart.” and “The
employees of private colleges will understand the specific needs of their
customers.” had the same weighted mean of 3.42 with a verbal interpretation of
“Agree” as well.
Meanwhile, the indicator “Private colleges will have employees who give
customers personal service.” got the least number of answers from the
respondents with a weighted mean of 3.35 and a verbal interpretation of
“Agree”.
Additionally, according to Kotler et. Al. (2010), in order to achieve
resilient trademark, brand consciousness is of high significance. Students must
feel that the school should always at their back not only in terms of academics
but in terms of their holistic development. School should let the students feel
that there is a compassion and understanding in times that they need
assistance in all forms of curricular and extra-curricular endeavors.
Curtis e. al. (2010) claimed that an educational group with a
resilient trademark, evidently linked with precise reimbursements, can fascinate
high-value workforces. This is approved in the study of Cornut et. al. (2012)
which stated that solid brand does not only value a faculty through enticing
students. In a marketplace where schools are contending over students it can
also have the prospective of enticing the finest students accessible.
Table 2.6
Summary Table for the Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation)
Expectation WM VI Rank
Tangibles 3.37 Agree 5
Reliability 3.39 Agree 3

Responsiveness 3.42 Agree 1
Assurance 3.39 Agree 4
Empathy 3.40 Agree 2
Over-all Mean 3.39 Agree
Table 2.6 showed the summary for the assessment on brand image
(expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and
empathy. Based on the overall findings, responsiveness obtained the highest
mean of 3.42 (Agree) followed by empathy with the weighted mean of 3.40
(Agree) and reliability with a weighted mean of 3.39 (Agree)
On the other hand, the least among the list of indicators was tangibles
with a weighted mean of 3.37 (Agree). Generally, an overall mean of 3.39
(Agree) which means that the respondents agreed to the given indicators
regarding brand image as they consider the features of the school which they
were intended to enroll.
Brand image is very significant in the field of marketing. Through brand
image, clients foresee service and product excellence, improve buying behavior
and always remember the good quality in their mind. Similarly, brand image
conveyed by schools is an important factor when students select a school.
When a school possesses a positive school brand image, students can
distinguish the variances among schools and develop their own choice. Park,
Jaworski, and MacInnis (2010) developed three concepts of image. The first
concept is the functional brand image. It is used to explain consumers’

peripheral usage of demands. It means the school provides services that
satisfies the students’ functional needs and answers all related problems
related to services availed by the students. It includes the school tangibles such
as building facilities and equipment, ecological resources and teaching of the
school program or course. The second concept is the symbolic brand image. It
aims to bridge persons with definite clusters. Symbolic brand image can satisfy
the students’ promotion of one’s ability and skills, improvement of societal
roles, coordination in cluster associations and development of self-esteem.
Moreover, it is a public image awareness related to community, instructional
and human resources. The experiential brand image intends to gratify students’
inner search of enthusiasm and varied necessities. It highlights the fulfilment
with the school brand and the encouragement outcome of perception. It
denotes to the appearance acuity related to the knowledge understanding,
informative involvement and life understanding. Brand image is in the students’
reminiscence and is the connotation with the brand. It is accepted to conclude
or keep the apparent class of goods and services, and it signifies all the data of
the services and product. Thus, students conclude several kinds of supposed
value.
Brand is not just the merchandise or service itself with a mark or any
representation; rather, it is an impression that transforms services and product
into somewhat of worth and significance (Haltch, 2013). It offers exclusivity,
and it is the distinguishable features that one can connect to the precise kind.
The brand occurs to a huge level due to students, in particular trustworthy

clients - it is not only the association that sorts up a trademark. This is
established by Jacoby et. al (2015) who believes that the brand is known by the
students’ understanding and service appreciation and that the brand
continuously meets to bring significance. It is essential that the school
understands the students’ awareness of its brand.
Based on future perspective, it can be gleaned that “responsiveness”
definitely attract students to enroll in a school since most of the students
nowadays prefer a school which hears or listens accordingly and promptly to all
student concerns and needs. For them, a responsive school to all students
concerns make students feel that they are placed in the center of the school
service. On the other hand, the school should improve the physical facilities
and equipment since students also look forward for all the tangibles present in
school. Tangibles also encourage students to enroll. An excellent learning
facility is also an indication that the school also offers excellent and quality of
education.
Table 3.1
Assessment on Students Satisfaction (Perception) in terms of
Tangibles
Tangibles WM VI Rank
1. My college/ school has modern equipment. 2.86 Agree 3
2. The physical facilities in my college/school will

2.82 Agree 4
be visually appealing.
3. Employees at my college/school are neat in
3.24 Agree 1
their appearance.
4. Materials associated with in my college/school
(pamphlets or statements) are visually 2.98 Agree 2
appealing.
The table above showed the assessment of the respondents on student
satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles. The composite mean of 2.98
(Agree) visibly indicated that the respondents were satisfied with the physical
and perceptible aspects which they found in the school were they enrolled in.
Based on the itemized indicators, “Employees at my college/school are
neat in their appearance.” received the highest weighted mean of 3.24 (Agree).
It was followed by “Materials associated with in my college/school (pamphlets
or statements) are visually appealing.” with a weighted mean of 2.98 (Agree).
On the other hand, the indicator with the least response was “The
physical facilities in my college/school will be visually appealing.” with a
weighted mean of 2.82 (Agree).
The above finding was supported by the idea of Ellison (2017)
recommended that if students are acquainted with the school, including
educational understanding, amenities and facilities, their satisfaction with the
school will rise. Therefore, students can observe the school and reassess the
service content of the school.

Lincoln (2015) discussed some issues that would entice students. These
included school tangibles and practicum support as some of the important
features for student satisfaction. Higher education institutions can fascinate
students by presenting state-of-the-art libraries, classrooms, computer
laboratories, and other facilities. Students devote a substantial portion of their
time using these facilities, thus giving possible chances to inspire student
satisfaction.
Haque et al. (2011) brings out some features that offer by the university
that somehow affects the satisfaction of the students. Example of this are
student research facilities, quality of teaching, space for group discussion and
etc. According to Spreng (2013) most previous fulfilment study has not
comprised presentation as a straight originator of satisfaction. Service
presentation has developed a vital concept in promotion study. Professors and
course content are the two factors that affect to service performance. (Mont
and Plepys 2013) said that tangible and intangible attributes depend on subject
measurement. The insubstantial nature of higher education makes it hard for
students to efficiently assess issues such as the quality of instruction, as well
as the quality of student service. The concrete features related with the
education are computers, classrooms, and library facilities.
Table 3.2
Assessment on Student Satisfaction (Perception) in terms of
Reliability
Reliability WM VI Rank
1. When my college/school promised to do
2.60 Agree 5
2. When a customer has a problem, my 2.76 Agree 3
college/school shows a sincere interest in

solving it.
3. My college/school perform the service right the
2.86 Agree 1
first time.
4. My college/school provides the service at the
2.71 Agree 4
time they promise to do so.
5. My college/school promotes an error free
2.78 Agree 2
records.
Table 3.2 showed the assessment of the respondents on student
satisfaction (perception) in terms of reliability. The composite mean of 2.74
(Agree) noticeably indicated that the respondents were satisfied in relation to
school consistency and trustworthiness when it comes to assisting them with
their needs.
Based on the enumerated indicators, “My college/school perform the
service right the first time.” received the highest weighted mean of 2.86
(Agree). It was followed by “My college/school promotes an error free records.”
with a weighted mean of 2.78 (Agree).
The indicator with the least response was “When my college/school
promised to do something by a certain time, they do.” with a weighted mean of
2.60 (Agree).
The above finding was supported by the idea of Gruen et.al. (2016).
According to him “Student satisfaction is usually recognized as a temporary
outlook causing from an assessment of a student’s instructive involvement.

Student satisfaction fallouts when definite presentation encounters or
surpasses the student’s prospects.” The two descriptions between student
satisfaction in general and student gratification are very parallel because they
refer to immediate nature of specific operations or proceedings. (Hemsley-
Brown & Goonawardana, 2017)
Table 3.3
Responsiveness
Responsiveness WM VI Rank
1. The employees in my college/school tells
customer exactly when services will be 2.82 Agree 3
performed.
2. Employees in college/school give prompt service
2.90 Agree 2
to customers.
3. Employees in my college/school are always willing
2.96 Agree 1
to help customers.
4. Employees in my college/school are never be too
2.60 Agree 4
busy to respond to customers' requests.
satisfaction (perception) in terms of responsiveness. The composite mean of
2.82 (Agree) noticeably indicated that the respondents were satisfied in the way
the school attend to their concerns and needs quickly and rapidly.
Based on the enumerated indicators, “Employees in my college/school
are always willing to help customers.” received the highest weighted mean of
2.96 (Agree). It was followed by “Employees in college/school give prompt
service to customers.” with a weighted mean of 2.90 (Agree).
The indicator with the least response was “The employees in my
college/school tells customer exactly when services will be performed.” with a
The above finding was related to the impression that the student
satisfaction in higher education is repeatedly varying concept (Elliott and Shin,
2012). It is an active procedure that needs perfect and operative
accomplishment as an outcome of a school attending to its students. Student
satisfaction is a multifaceted concept subjective by a selection of features of
students and institutions (Thomas and Galambos, 2014). Student satisfaction is
a total answer not only to the knowledge involvement of a student
(WiersJenssen et al. 2012).
The literature on student satisfaction and their awareness of the
scholastic involvement is very intricate. Opinions of the writers on the idea of
student satisfaction is fairly varied. Each writer has their own viewpoint about
the needs of students in the university. Some writers maintain the so called
“administrative height” of student satisfaction. The university is an initiative and
the students are the clients. In order to please students, the client attitude
should be functional in the universities.
Table 3.4
Assurance
Assurance WM VI Rank
1. The behavior of employees in my college/school
3.09 Agree 2
instill confidence in customers
2. Customers in my college/school are safe in
2.95 Agree 3
transactions.
3. Employees in my college/school are consistently
2.74 Agree 4
4. Employees in my college/school have the
3.20 Agree 1
satisfaction (perception) in terms of assurance. The composite mean of 3.00
(Agree) markedly indicated that the respondents were satisfied in the way the
school give them the guarantee and assertion of the benefits which they will
and they can get in school.
Based on the counted indicators, “Employees in my college/school have
the knowledge to answer customers' questions.” received the highest weighted
mean of 3.20 (Agree). It was followed by “The behavior of employees in my
college/school instill confidence in customers” with a weighted mean of 3.09
(Agree).
The indicator with the least response was “Employees in my
college/school are consistently courteous with customers.” with a weighted
mean of 2.74 (Agree).

The above finding was associated to the idea of Hill (2015) proposes
that the main clients of the universities are the students, and so Higher
Education is progressively distinguishing that it is a service productiveness and
is placing better importance on accomplishing the prospects and desires of
students. One thing that helps in any university to adjust the student’s needs is
to give priority to their satisfaction by means of creating a system that monitors
if the university meets student’s needs. (Elliott and Shin, 2012). Furthermore
some researcher said that in order for the university to become effective they
need to translate in a relationship level. (Helfert et al. 2012). Seymour (2013)
discussed that the main objective of higher education is to make their students
happy and satisfied. Therefore, concentrating on improving the student
satisfaction at colleges and universities is vital in emerging client value.
Students can be observed as clients of the universities. Thus, it is significant for
the university to concentrate on its students, and to give their prospects by
giving excellent education.
Table 3.5
Empathy
Empathy WM VI Rank
1. My college/school gives customers individual
2.84 Agree 2
attention.
2. My college/school has operating hours convenient
2.91 Agree 1
to all customers.
3. My college/school has employees who give
2.83 Agree 3
4. My college/school has their customers' best
2.75 Agree 4
interest at heart.
5. The employees in my college/school understand

2.74 Agree 5
satisfaction (perception) in terms of empathy. The composite mean of 2.81
(Agree) distinctly indicated that the respondents were satisfied in the way the
school understand and sympathize to their concerns and inquiry.
Based on the tallied indicators, “My college/school has operating hours
convenient to all customers.” received the highest weighted mean of 2.91
(Agree). It was followed by “My college/school gives customers individual
attention.” with a weighted mean of 2.84 (Agree).
The indicator with the least response was “The employees in my
college/school understand the specific needs of their customers.” with a
The above finding was linked to the indication of the article “Student
satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities”, Petruzzellis,
D‟Uggento, Romanazzi (2016) observed students as clients of universities and
made the assumption that universities need to accept a client centric
methodology. They examined mutual aspects such as: lecture halls,
laboratories, equipment, library, dining hall, dormitories, leisure activities,
language courses, scholarships, internet access, exam booking, and contacts

with teachers, administrative services, tutoring, counseling, internship,
international relationship and placement.
Students have progressively started to perceive themselves as patrons
or clients of a service association, and related with this is the great prospects of
principles and competence from the educational organizations. Consequently,
student satisfaction is gradually significant. Rarely, prospects of global students
are not encountered by universities (East 2011), which may have fascinated
these students by exaggerated and enthusiastic marketing procedures. Bless
et. al. (2015) initiated that absence of satisfaction was related with inferior
version in global students. They propose that the variance between prospects
and involvements is related with total alteration: the larger the inconsistencies,
the inferior the mental and socio-cultural variation. Study displays that global
students have inferior insights of services offered by their universities than their
national complements (Sherry, Bhat, Beaver, and Ling 2014).

De Shields 2014).
Table 3.6
Summary Table for the Assessment on Student Satisfaction
(Perception)
Satisfaction WM VI Rank
Tangibles 2.98 Agree 2
Reliability 2.74 Agree 5
Responsiveness 2.82 Agree 3
Assurance 3.00 Agree 1
Empathy 2.81 Agree 4
Over-all Mean 3.39 Agree
Table 3.6 showed the summary for the assessment on student
assurance and empathy. Based on the overall findings, assurance obtained the
highest mean of 3.00 (Agree) followed by tangibles with the weighted mean of
2.98 (Agree) and responsiveness with a weighted mean of 2.82 (Agree)
On the other hand, the least among the list of indicators was reliability
with a weighted mean of 2.74 (Agree). Generally, an overall mean of 3.39

(Agree) which means that the respondents were satisfied by the given
indicators regarding customer satisfaction as they consider the features of the
school which they were enrolled in.
To hold the difficulty of the knowledge involvement, it is significant to
appreciate the aspects that donate to student satisfaction. For many students,
“the method of studying not only signifies attainment of definite skills and
academic awareness; it is also connected to individual development and
community progress (Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012). By rotating the emphasis to
the program content, the issue on quality will be one of top significance (Scott
2010). According to Elliott and Shin (2012) “a university’s output is more than
its educational course. It is the amount of the student’s educational, societal,
bodily, and even divine undertakings”. Moreover, satisfaction is definitely
inclined when there is constructive insight of the quality (Anderson, Fornell and
Lehmann 2014). Finaly-Neumann (2014) determines that main forecasters of
instructional satisfaction include clearness of instructional responsibilities,
instructor response and uniqueness of instructional tasks. Biggs (2011) state
that by focusing in high quality instruction and when the university provides the
curriculum that meets the expectation of the students the high satisfaction can
be gain.
Based on the above findings, the school should further maintain the
assurance given to the students since it occupied the most number of response
from the respondents. Assurance made the students satisfied during their stay
in the school. On the other hand, the school should look in to the aspect of
reliability. The school should find out why the aforementioned area got the
weakest point among respondent’s answers. Various activities and service
audits should be conducted to know the reason why students were not so
satisfied when it comes to service reliability.
Table 4.1
As presented from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of tangibles when grouped
to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent since the
computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. This suggests
that assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of tangibles is not
affected by age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.
Moreover, there is significant difference in difference in assessment on
student satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles when grouped to
educational level since the computed p value is less than 0.05 level of
significance. Thus, assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in terms of
tangibles is affected by educational level. However, there is no significant
difference in difference in assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in
terms of tangibles when grouped to age, sex and employment of parent since
the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. Therefore,
assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles is not
affected by age, sex and employment of parent.
Brand image in a school set up can comprise of characters, aids, ideals,
owner wants the students’ to subordinate with the brand (Pate, 2017). Swan et.
al. (2017) explained that brand identity is what the trademark stands for, what
provides it value, and what makes it exceptional; it is the brand’s impression.
Jevons (2016) highlights that brand identity is to be realized as the basis for a
brand and that it should replicate the brand’s essential principles. Brand identity
comprises features such as image, goal, and idea of diversity, standards and
symbol of gratitude. Aaker (2016) delivers another aspect of brand identity and
clarifies how it can be equal to the fundamentals of the school but also how it
can be stretched to embrace significance adding standpoints. The brand image
represents the rudimentary features that will be passed on with the brand over
time. However, he further claims that brand identity should not be measured
motionless, but should be exposed to modification if required. It should
replicate its anticipated connotations, but also its lasting potentials and aids,
protuberant or not.
Davis and Ellison (2017) recommended that if students are acquainted
with the school, including educational understanding, amenities and facilities,
their satisfaction with the school will rise. Therefore, students can observe the
school and reassess the service content of the school.
Haque et al. (2011) recognized self-regulating features that can affect
student satisfaction based on services presented by schools. These include
quality of teaching, student research facilities, library book collections and
services, campus infrastructure, canteen facilities, space for group discussions,
sport programs, ICT (PC and Internet) facilities
Table 4.2
As shown from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of reliability when grouped
to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent since the
computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. This implies that
assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of reliability is not affected
by age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.
student satisfaction (perception) in terms of reliability when grouped to

reliability is affected by educational level. However, there is no significant
difference in difference in assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in
terms of reliability when grouped to age, sex and employment of parent since
the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. Therefore,
assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in terms of reliability is not
affected by age, sex and employment of parent.
De Shields 2014).
Table 4.3
As indicated from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of responsiveness when
grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent since
the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. This implies
that assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of responsiveness is
not affected by age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.
student satisfaction (perception) in terms of responsiveness when grouped to
responsiveness is affected by educational level. However, there is no
significant difference in difference in assessment on strudent satisfaction
(perception) in terms of responsiveness when grouped to age, sex and

employment of parent since the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level
of significance. Therefore, assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in
terms of responsiveness is not affected by age, sex and employment of parent.
Tertiary schooling involves changes to new educational and societal
surroundings. Such needs are often more multifaceted for global students, who
have to familiarize to a new philosophy, language, educational, and societal
atmosphere (Mori 2010). Wiers-Jenssen et al. (2012) highlight that there are
some details to be careful when applying the satisfaction method in higher
education. Due to the academic conversation, satisfaction is explained in
altered ways: moods and feelings are not totally taken into explanation as
variables in the satisfaction course (Wirtz and Chew 2012). There is a variance
between organizations and subject-fields concerning the most important
student satisfaction factors (Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012).
Table 4.4
As exhibited from the table above, here is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) and student satisfaction (perception)
in terms of assurance when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and
of significance. This implies that assessment on brand image (expectation) and
student satisfaction (perception) in terms of assurance is not affected by age,
sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.
branding strategy.
Table 4.5
As revealed from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) and student satisfaction (perception)
in terms of empathy when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and
of significance. This suggest that assessment on brand image (expectation)
and student satisfaction (perception) in terms of empathy is not affected by
age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.

Gelb and Sundaram (2012) propose that satisfaction can be either
precise for a portion of a procedure or whole for the entire school institution.
Satisfaction can be conveyed through commendations or faithfulness to the
service provider. In the extreme students will express disappointment by
swapping to the opponents. The main explanation why a student would want to
shift are the disappointment of the fundamental service provided or social
concerns like hard-hearted staff and teachers.
According to Gruen et.al. (2016) “Student satisfaction is usually
recognized as a temporary outlook causing from an assessment of a student’s
instructive involvement. Student satisfaction fallouts when definite presentation
encounters or surpasses the student’s prospects.” The two descriptions
between student satisfaction in general and student gratification are very
parallel because they refer to immediate nature of specific operations or
proceedings. (Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2017)
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
As can be grasped from the table above, there is no significant
relationship between assessment on brand image (expectation) and student
assurance and empathy since the computed p values are greater than 0.05
level of significance. This implies that assessment on brand image
(expectation) do not affect the student satisfaction (perception) in terms of
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy.
Based on the research purposes and the above findings, the author
proposed suggestions regarding the proposed marketing strategy of
universities and future research. Brand image significantly influences the
construction of students’ loyalty and satisfaction. University managers should
properly cultivate the brand image and reputation of the school and enhance
the brand image so as for the students to achieve the satisfaction which they
are looking forward to. This will not only attract students but also easily
construct student loyalty. In addition, enhancing the positive quality of campus
service has become a critical issue and should be given consideration. The
interaction between service personnel in the school administration and student
customers particularly influences the students’ views toward the school and
their attitude toward the brand. According to the findings of this study, students’
satisfaction with schools relatively influences their loyalty. Therefore, university
administrators should not only enhance their external brand image but also pay
attention to satisfaction with internal service equality, such as the administration

personnel’s service attitude, the quality of the curriculum and the facilities, in
order to develop a friendly campus and construct positive campus service
quality.
Conclusions
1. Significant result revealed majority of the incoming college students
were between 18 years old and below, while for the college students,
majority were 19 – 21 years old, mostly female and both incoming and
college students were divided equally in terms of educational attainment.
In terms of employment of parents, mostly were employed followed by
unemployed and OFW.
2. Responsiveness and empathy got the highest rank for expectation while
assurance and tangibles were the top rankers for perception. Tangibles
and assurance occupied the lowest rank for expectation while reliability
and empathy were the lowest in terms of perception.
3. There is no significant difference in assessment on brand image
(expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance
and empathy when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and
employment of parent.
4. There is significant difference in assessment on brand image
and empathy when grouped to educational level.

5. There is no significant difference in difference in assessment on student
assurance and empathy when grouped to age, sex and employment of
parent.
6. There is significant difference in assessment on student satisfaction
and empathy when grouped to educational level.
Proposed Plan for the basis of marketing strategy
Rationale: This proposed plan for the basis marketing strategy was
based on the significant findings of this paper.

Proposed Plan for Marketing Program for Service Enhancement
KRA PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PERSON

INVOLVED
• Designing and Marketing Officer,
EXPECTATION Customer launching a school Guidance
relationship website aimed at Counsellor, Internal,
1. Responsive management enhancing External and
ness educational Academic Student
activities, and Affairs Officer s,
collaboration with faculty members, IT
the school’s officers
constituency
• Putting a
suggestion and/or
freedom of
expression box
which will give
students the
freedom to express
their thoughts,
opinions and
suggestions
regarding school-
related concerns.
• Circulating and
Distributing weekly
school newsletters
• Evaluating all
communications to
determine how they
support school’s
mission and vision
Giving prompt • Developing a Marketing Officer,

service to customers systematic, organize Guidance
support in response and state-of-the-art Counsellor, Internal,
to requests payment cue system External and
• Partnering with Academic Student
various payment Affairs Officer s,
centers and financial faculty members,
institutions for quick Accounting Officer,
and easy payment IT Officers
activity
• Developing a
software which will
give students a
quick and easy
access to library and
other school learning
laboratories even
though they are at
home or outside the

school premises
through internet
access.
• Informing students
and parents about
student’s academic
progress (grades)
through via school-
designed electronic
software. In the
same way, it will
also inform and
update the students
and parents about
the latest school
activities and
undertakings.
Willingness to help • Implement a All Departments

customers “SMILE AT ME AT All School
ALL TIMES Staff/Personnel
PROGRAM”
promoting positive,
accommodating and
excellent customer
service for all school
departments and
school personnel. All
school employee will
wear a badge with
the programs
“smiley logo” to
remind the advocacy
of the program at all
times
Marketing Officer,
PERCEPTION Making sure that all • Conducting weekly Guidance
concerns are town hall and/or Counsellor, Internal,
2. Reliability addressed employee, student External and
accordingly and and parent meeting Academic Student
given appropriate to find out whether Affairs Officer s,
action all concerns and faculty members, IT
issues are officers
addressed
accordingly and
given appropriate
action.
• Circulating and
Distributing weekly
school newsletters
with returned
feedback forms.
Promising to do • Implementing a Marketing Officer,

something by a program with a clear Guidance
certain time and black and white copy Counsellor, Internal,
doing what is being of time-frame and External and
told to the customers accomplishment Academic Student
report. Affairs Officer s,
faculty members,
• Strengthening the Accounting and
schools’ guidance Registrar Officer, IT
program focusing on Officers
guidance and
counselling activities
for both the students
and parents to feel
that the school will
always be at their
back at all times
• Implementing a
weekly customer
service survey
Promoting an error • Establishing and/or All Departments

free records organizing a school All School
committee who will Staff/Personnel
conduct thorough
and keen reading of
various school
academic forms
prior to its
distribution or
dissemination to the
students and
parents.
EXPECTATION/ Giving customers • Focusing and All Departments

PERCEPTION individual attention strengthening All School
and personalized “individualism” in all Staff/Personnel
3. Empathy service. school services. In
this way, each
student and parent
will be given special
and personalized
services rather than
attending to different
students and
parents at the same
time.
• Implementing a
“NO NOON BREAK”
policy even though
the school is a
private institution
• Distributing
monthly parent
involvement form
educating parents
about the specific
lessons to be
discussed per
grading including
activities and other
school-related
undertakings.
Recommendations
1. It is important for the school brand managers that they should think
strategically regarding how they can improve and strengthen
identification of their brands which will lead to student satisfaction.
2. School brand managers therefore should monitor continuously the
potential and existing concerns and needs of students in order to
understand their interests and necessities, developing suitable services
in order to improve the brand equity.
3. To sustain the brand image, school leaders need to recruit, and retain
trained faculty and provide infrastructure facilities. The school can also
utilize social media for continuous communication toward strategic brand
enhancement.
4. The school needs to continue researching on brand image and customer
satisfaction and others so as to be aware of the factors which influences
the market in any giving time and place, this continuity will help gather
more information and therefore position the school in a good and sound
position to judge and strategize when planning.
5. There is a need to improve and develop a marketing plan which will
focus on strengthening reliability and empathy in order to win customer
satisfaction and further enhance factors related to tangibles, assurance
and responsiveness. In terms of brand image, a marketing plan should
also focus on maintaining strategically planned programs on
responsiveness and empathy since these factors sustain the positive
image of the school.
6. Additional research is needed to fully understand how satisfaction arises
among all students. Different groups of people might have different
opinions on the service quality of the educational units. Therefore, it is
crucial to understand the differences among the different groups that are
involved in the service-delivering process. Thus, considerably more work
is required to explore the factors used to judge brand image and service
quality.
References
Aaker, D. A. (2016). Building strong brands. Simon and Schuster.
Alessandri, S.W. (2013). Modeling corporate identity: a concept explication

and theoretical explanation. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal. Vol. 6, No. 4, 173–182.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., Lehmann, D.R. (2014). Customer Satisfaction,

Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of
Marketing vol. 58, 53-66.
cles/Anderson %201994.pdf. Accessed 16.10.2011.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (2010). Structural equation modeling in

practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.

Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Andrews, F. M. , and S. B. Withey (2012) Development and measurement

of
social indicators, Spring 1972-Summer 1973 [machine-readable
data file; first ICPSR edition, 1975]. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey
Research Center, Institute for Social Research. (Distributed by
Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.)
Argenti, P. (2010). Branding B-Schools: Reputation Management for MBA

Programs. Corporate Reputation Review. Vol. 3, No. 2, 171–178.
Baker, M.J. & Balmer, J.M.T. (2013). Visual identity: trappings of substance.
European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 31 Iss. 5, 366–382.
Balamuth, E. (2015) Capacity and Ability of Parents of Sending Children to

School. National Center for Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 7.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Balmer, J.M.T. & Gray, E.R. (2013). Corporate brands: what are they? What
of them? European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 37, No. 7/8, 972–
997.
Balmer, J.M.T. & Liao G.. (2013). Corporate brands: what are they? What of
them? European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 37, No. 7/8, 972–
997.Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equationmodels. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science,
16(1), 74-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2016). Word-of-mouth processes within a

services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research,
3(2), 166-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109467050032005
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (2016). The moderator-mediator variable

distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bateson, Phillips, & Hoffman Jørgensen, M. (2014). Discourse analysis as

Theory and Method. London: SAGE.
Biggs, J. (2011). Teaching International Students. Teaching for quality

learning at university. What the student does. Buckingham: Open
University Press, 121-140.
Bless, C., Higson- Smith, C. (2015). Fundamentals of social research

methods. An African perspective (2nd ed). Cape Town: Juta and
Co, Ltd.
Brown, T., Dacin, P., Pratt, M. & Whetten, D. (2016). Identity, intended
image, construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary
framework and suggested methodology. Journal of the Academy
of
Marketing Science. 34, 95–106.
Bruyn, A., & Lilien, G. L. (2008). A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth

influence through viral marketing. International Journal of
Research
in Marketing, 25(3), 151-163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.03.004
Bulotaite,N. (2013).University heritage:an institutional tool for branding and

marketing.Higher Education in Europe,Vol. XXVIII No.4,449–454.
Bunzel, D.L. (2017). Universities sell their brands. Journal of Product &
Brand
Management. Vol. 16, Iss. 2, 152–153.
Chapleo, C. (2010). What defines “successful” university brands?

International Journal of Public Sector Management. Vol. 23, Iss. 2,
169–183.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2010). Testing mediation and suppression

effects of latent variables. Organizational Research Methods,
11(2),
296-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
Claycomb, C., Martin, C.L. (2011). Building customer relationships: an

inventory of service providers´ objectives and practices. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning vol. 19, 385-399.
Cornelissen, J.P., Haslam, S.A. & Balmer, J.M.T. (2017). Social Identity,
Organizational Identity and Corporate Identity. Towards an
Integrated Understanding of Processes, Patternings and Products.
British Journal of Management. Vol. 18, S1–S16.
Cornut, F., Giroux, H., & Langly, A. (2012). The strategic plan as a genre.
Discourse & Communication, 6, 21–54.
Curtis, T., Abratt, R. & Minor, W. (2010). Corporate brand management in

higher education: the case of ERAU. Journal of Product & Brand
Management. Vol. 18, Iss. 6, 404–413.
Davis, T. M., & Ellison, L. (2017). Improving the quality of schools: Ask the
Clients？School organization, 15, 5-12.
De Chernatony, L. (2012). Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate

name? Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, No. 2/3, 114–132.
Dobson, I. (2010). Finland: Merger fever hits universities. University World

News, 20 April 2008. Read on November 22, 2012 on
http://www.universityworldnews.com
East, J., (2011). “Students as customers: International student perceptions

of
educational services at La Trobe University” Master thesis, La
Trobe University, University of New England.
Elliot, Vaara, E. & Healy, Sorsa, V. (2011). Strategy as text and discursive
practice: a genre-based approach to strategizing in city
administration. Discourse & Communication. Vol. 3, No. 3, 303–
318.
Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2012). Student satisfaction: An alternative

approach
to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 24(2), 197-209.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080022000013518
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2010). Qualitative Methods in Business

Research. SAGE Publications.
Eskola, J. & Suoranta, J. (2008). Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. 8th

Edition. Vastapaino.
Evans, J. & Wetherell, M. (2011). Discourse and Social Psychology. Beyond

Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE.
Fairclough, N. (2012). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Finaly-Neumann, E. (2014). Course work characteristics and students´

satisfaction with instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology
vol.
21, 14-22. http://psycnetapa.org/psycinfo/1994-39255-001.
Accessed 16.10.2011.
Flowerdew, J. (2014). The discursive construction of a world-class city.

Discourse & Society. Vol. 15, 579–605.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (2010). Evaluating structural equation models

with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Gelb, B. D., & Sundaram, S. (2012). Adapting to “word of mouse”. Business

Horizons, 45(4), 21-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007- 6813(02)00222-7
Gray, B.J., Fan, K.S. & Llanes, V.A. (2013). Branding universities in Asian
markets. Journal of Product & Brand Management. Vol. 12, No.
2/3,
108–112.
Guolla, M. (2010). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction

relationship: applied customer satisfaction research in the
classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice vol. 7, 87-96.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/40469971. Accessed 16.10.2011.
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2016). EWOM: The

impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on
customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59(4),
449-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.10.004
Haque, J. H. M., Das D., Farzana, R., (2011). Satisfaction of Student

Services in Tertiary Level: Perspective Bangladesh, European
Journal of Social Sciences vol. 19, 286
www.eurojournals.com/EJSS_19_2_12.pdf. Accessed 07.11.2011.
Harvey, L. (2015). Student satisfaction. The New Review of Academic

Librarianship vol.1, 161-73.
Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. (2013). Bringing the corporation into corporate
branding. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 37, No. 7/8, 1041–
1064.
Helfert, G., Ritter, T., Walter, A. (2012). Redefining market orientation from
a
relationship perspective - Theoretical considerations and empirical
results. European Journal of Marketing vol. 36, 1119-1139.
Hemsley-Brown, J. & Goonawardana, S. (2017). Brand harmonization in the

international higher education market. Journal of Business
Research. Vol. 60, No. 9, 942–948.
Hill, F.M. (2015). Managing service quality in Higher Education: the role of
the student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education
vol. 3, 10-21.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (2015). Evaluating Model Fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.).
Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications
(pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (2015). Brand loyalty: Measurement and

Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jarvis, P. (2011). Universities and Corporate Universities: the Higher

Learning Industry in Global Society. London: Kogan Page.
Jevons, C. (2016). Universities: a prime example of branding going wrong.

Journal of Product & Brand Management. Vol. 15, No. 7, 466–467.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2012). LISREL: A Guide to the Program and
Applications (3rd ed.). Chicago: Scientific Software International,
Inc.
Kara, A., De Shields O.W., (2014). Business Student Satisfaction, Intentions

and Retention in Higher Education: An Empirical Investigation.
Marketing Education Quarterly vol.3, 1-25.
Khawaja, N. G, Dempsey J., (2010). A Comparison of International and

Domestic Tertiary Students in Australia, Queensland University of
Technology, Australia, Australian Journal of Guidance &
Counselling vol. 18, 30–46.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of Marketing. 13th Edition.

Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Levine, A. (2017). Higher education becomes a mature industry. About

Campus. Vol. 2, No. 3, 31–32.
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G. (2015). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.
Mazzarol, T. (2010). Critical success factors for international education

marketing. The International Journal of Educational Management,
12(4), 163-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513549810220623
Melewar, T.C., Bassett, K. & Simões, C. (2016). The role of communication

and visual identity in modern organisations. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal. Vol. 11, No. 2, 138–
147
Mont, O, Plepys, A. (2013). Customer satisfaction: review of literature and

application to the product–service systems. International Institute
for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, Lund.
Mori, S. (2010). Addressing the mental health concerns of international

students. Journal of Counseling and Development vol. 78, 137–
144.
http://aca.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&eissn=1556-
6676&volume=78&issue=2&spage=137. Accessed 16.10.2011.
Nielsen Company (2010). Global Satisfaction and Happiness Survey.

Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
Oliver, R. L. (2017). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63

(Special Issue), 33-44.
Osman, H. (2010). Re-branding academic institutions with corporate

advertising: a genre perspective. Discourse & Communication.
Vol.
2, No. 1, 57–77.
Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Perez, J. P. (2012). The configuration of

the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of
students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486-505.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230210440311
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. (2010). A multiple-item scale

for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of
Retailing vol. 64, 12-40.
Park, W. C., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, J. D. (2010). Strategic brand

concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50(10), 62-78.
Pate, W. S. (2017). Modeling consumer satisfaction, determinants of

satisfaction, andpost purchase actions among, consumers of
undergraduate higher education (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Petruzzellis L., D‟Uggento, A.M., Romanazzi, S., (2016). Student

satisfaction
and quality of service in Italian universities. Managing Service
Quality vol. 16, 349-364. www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm.
Pew Research Center (2003). The Pew Global Attitudes Project.

Washington
D.C. United States of America
Pinar, M., Trapp, P., Girard, T. & Boyt, T.E. (2011). Utilizing the brand
ecosystem framework in designing branding strategies for higher
education. International Journal of Educational Management. Vol.
25, No. 7, 724–739.
Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2017). The role of internal branding in the
delivery
of employee brand promise. Journal of Brand Management, 15(1),
57-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550110
Richins, M. L. (2017). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A

pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68-78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3203428
Robertson, J. S. (2016). Low-commitment consumer behavior. Journal of

Advertising Research, 16, 19-24.
Scott, S.V. (2010). The academic as service provider: is the customer

“always right”? Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management vol. 21, 193-202.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1360080990210206.
Seymour, D. T., (2013). Causing Quality in Higher Education, Phoenix. AZ:

Orxy Press.
Sherry, C., Bhat, R., Beaver, B., Ling, A. (2014). Students as customers: the
expectations and perceptions of local and international students.
HERDSA Conference http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/conference/2004/PDF/P017-jt.pdf. Accessed
16.10.2011.
Sobel, M. E. (2012). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in

structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-
312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/270723
Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B., Olshavsky, R.W. (2013). A re-examination

of
the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing
vol.
60, 15-32.
Swan, J. E., & Oliver, R. L. (2017). Post-purchase communications by

consumers. Journal of Retailing, 65(4), 516-533.
Thomas, E. H., Galambos, N., (2014). What satisfies students? Mining

Student-Opinion Data with Regression and Decision Tree
Analysis.
Research in Higher Education vol. 45, 251-269.
Tompson, H., & Brownlee, A. (2013). The First Year Experience for
Business
Students: A Model for Design and Implementation to Improve
Student Retention. Journal of the Academy of Business Education,
14(2), 57-88.
Whisman, R. (2010). Internal branding: a university’s most valuable

intangible asset. Journal of Product & Brand Management. Vol.
18,
No. 5, 367–370.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., Grogaard, J.B. (2012). Student

Satisfaction: towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept.
Quality in Higher Education vol. 8, 183-195.
Wirtz, J., & Chew, P. (2012). The effects of incentives, deal proneness,
satisfaction and tie strength on word-of-mouthbehaviour.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(2), 141-
162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230210425340
Wolverton, M. (2016). Three Georgias in Atlanta: Lessons from business

schools about finding your identity. International Journal of
Educational Management. Vol. 20 Iss. 7, 507– 519.
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
The Survey The questionnaire below is in two sections. The first

section asks you to rank all colleges according to your
expectations i.e. what you expect all colleges to provide.
The second section asks you to rank the college you
chose for the survey according to your experiences and
perceptions.
PART 1 - Profile of the Respondents

Direction: Kindly put a check on the answer that correspond to your answer.
Age:
( ) 18 years old and below
( ) 19 - 21 years old
( ) 22 - 24 years old
( ) 25 years old - above
Gender:
( ) Male
( ) Female
Educational Level
( ) Grade 11 College Course:
( ) Grade 12 ( ) Radiologic Technology

( ) Medical Technology
( ) Physical Therapy
( ) Psychology
( ) Business Administration
( ) Education
Employment Profile of Parents
( ) employed locally ( ) in between jobs/unemployed

( ) employed overseas/OFW
( ) retired
( ) entrepreneur
PART EXPECTATIONS
2A
This section of the survey deals with your opinions of colleges.
Please show the extent to which you think colleges should possess
the following features. What we are interested in here is a number
that best shows you expectations about institutions offering
educational services.
You should rank each statement as follows:
4 – Strongly Agree 3 – Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – Strongly Disagree
Statement Score
1. Private schools/colleges will have modern looking

equipment.
2. The physical facilities at private colleges will be

visually appealing.
3. Private at excellent colleges will be neat in their

Statement Score
appearance.
4. Materials associated with the service (pamphlets or

statements) will be visually appealing at an private
colleges.
5. When private colleges promise to do something by

a certain time, they do.
6. When a customer has a problem, private colleges

will show a sincere interest in solving it.
7. Private colleges will perform the service right the

first time.
1. Employees of private colleges will give prompt
8. Private
servicecolleges will provide the service at the time
to customers.
they promise to do so.
2. Employees of private colleges will always be willing
9. Private
to helpcolleges will insist on error free records.
customers.
3. The
10. employees
Employees of private
of private colleges
colleges willwill
neverunderstand
be too
the specific
busy needstoofcustomers'
to respond their customers.
requests.
4. The behaviour of employees in private colleges will

instil confidence in customers
5. Customers of private colleges will feel safe in

transactions.
6. Employees of private colleges will be consistently

7. Employees of private colleges will have the

8. Private colleges will give customers individual

attention.
9. Private colleges will have operating hours

10. Private colleges will have employees who give

11. Private colleges will have their customers' best

interest at heart.
12. The employees of private colleges will understand

PART 2B PERCEPTIONS
The following statements relate to your feelings about the

particular college you have chosen. Please show the extent to
which you believe this college has the feature described in the
statement. Here, we are interested in a number from 1 to 4 that
shows your perceptions about the college.
You should rank each statement as follows:
4 – Strongly Agree 3 – Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – Strongly Disagree
Score
Statement
1. My colleges/school has modern looking

equipment
2. The physical facilities in my college are

visually appealing.
3. Employees in my college/university are

neat in their appearance.
4. Materials associated with the service

(pamphlets or statements) are visually
appealing at my colleges/school.
5. When my college/university promise to do

6. When a customer has a problem, my

college/school shows a sincere interest in
solving it.
7. My college/school perform the service right

the first time.
8. My colleges/school provide the service at

the time they promise to do so.
9. My college/school insist on error free

records.
10. Employees in my colleges/school tell

customers exactly when services will be
performed.
11. Employees in my colleges/school gives

prompt service to customers
12. Employees in my college/school are always

be willing to help customers.
13. Employees in my colleges/school are never

be too busy to respond to customers'
requests.
14. The behaviour of employees in my

colleges/school are instil confidence in
customers
15. Customers of my colleges/school are feel

safe in transactions
16. Employees in my colleges/school are

consistently courteous with customers
17. Employees in my colleges/school has the

18. My colleges/school gives customers

individual attention.
19. My colleges/school has operating hours

20. My colleges/school has employees who

give customers personal service.
21. My colleges/school has their customers'

best interest at heart.
22. The employees in my colleges/school are

understand the specific needs of their
customers
LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES LAGUNA

Km 54 National Highway Makiling, Calamba City, Laguna
(049) 502-0971 to 75; 502-8946 www.lpl.edu.ph
Questionnaire
Dear Student,
I am student of Lyceum of the Philippines University-Laguna taking

Master in Business Administration and currently working on a research entitled
“Brand Image and Customer Satisfaction among college Students in Tanauan:
Basis for Marketing Strategy”. You have been chosen as one of my research
participant. Kindly answer the questions below with full sincerity and rest
assured that the personal information voluntarily provided will be treated with
utmost confidentiality. Your willingness to cooperate in this matter will be
gratefully appreciated.
Thank you and God bless.
Alvin S. Saracho
Reasercher
Noted by:
Dr.Joy Comia- Ashipaoloye
Thesis Adviser
LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES LAGUNA

Km 54 National Highway Makiling, Calamba City, Laguna
(049) 502-0971 to 75; 502-8946 www.lpl.edu.ph
To: Ms. Ma. Soledad V. Mercado,
President
DMMC Institute of Health Sciences
Date: February 26, 2018
Dear Ms. Mercado
A pleasant day to you. I am Alvin S. Saracho, Marketing Manager of

DMMCIHS, and now MBA candidate of Lyceum of the Philippines-Laguna. I am
writing this letter to seek for your approval to conduct a survey for my thesis
about Brand Image and Customer Satisfaction among college students in

Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy. I wish to distribute and collect my
questionnaire within the week. Rest assure that all the information I will be able
to gather will be treated with utmost confidentiality and shall be solely use for
this study only. The institution will be given a copy of my thesis. Your generous
support and approval would be greatly appreciated.
Alvin S. Saracho
Researcher/ Marketing Manager- DMMCIHS
Dr. Joy Comia- Ashipaoloye
Thesis Adviser
Statistical Outputs
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=age sex educ employment
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Notes
Output Created 07-Mar-2018 15:33:06
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data

100
File
Missing Value Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as

Handling missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data.
Syntax FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=age sex educ

employment
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.000
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.000
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

100
File

Handling missing.

employment
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
[DataSet0]
Statistics
age sex educ employment
N Valid 100 100 100 100
Missing 0 0 0 0
Frequency Table
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 94 94.0 94.0 94.0
2 6 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Sex
Valid 1 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
2 81 81.0 81.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Educ
Valid 1 50 50.0 50.0 50.0
2 50 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Employment
Valid 1 56 56.0 56.0 56.0
2 15 15.0 15.0 71.0
3 1 1.0 1.0 72.0
4 11 11.0 11.0 83.0
5 17 17.0 17.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=t1 t2 t3 t4 r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 re1 re2 re3 re4 a1 a2 a3 a4 e1 e2 e3e4 e5
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.
Descriptives
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in
100
Working Data File
Missing Value Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Handling
Cases Used All non-missing data are used.
Syntax DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=t1 t2 t3 t4 r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 re1

re2 re3 re4 a1 a2 a3 a4 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5
[DataSet0]
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Std. Deviation
t1 100 2.00 4.00 .50292
t2 100 2.00 4.00 .49686
t3 100 2.00 4.00 .55814
t4 100 1.00 4.00 .54486
r1 100 1.00 4.00 .66939
r2 100 1.00 4.00 .63397
r3 100 1.00 4.00 .69631
r4 100 1.00 4.00 .57735
r5 100 2.00 4.00 .62150
re1 100 1.00 4.00 .65474
re2 100 1.00 4.00 .59493
re3 100 1.00 4.00 .63850
re4 100 1.00 4.00 .65281
a1 100 1.00 4.00 .59493
a2 100 1.00 4.00 .59493
a3 100 1.00 4.00 .63214
a4 100 1.00 4.00 .64157
e1 100 1.00 4.00 .62636
e2 100 1.00 4.00 .57770
e3 100 1.00 4.00 .59246

MEANS TABLES=tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy BY age sex educ emp
loyment
/CELLS MEAN COUNT STDDEV.
MEANS TABLES=tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy BY age sex educ emp
loyment
/CELLS MEAN COUNT STDDEV
/STATISTICS ANOVA.
Means
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in
100
Working Data File
Missing Value Definition of For each dependent variable in a table, user-defined missing
Handling Missing values for the dependent and all grouping variables are treated
as missing.
Cases Used Cases used for each table have no missing values in any
independent variable, and not all dependent variables have
missing values.
Syntax MEANS TABLES=tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance

emphathy BY age sex educ employment
/STATISTICS ANOVA.
[DataSet0]
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
tangibles * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
reliability * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
responsiveness * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
assurance * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
emphathy * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
tangibles * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
reliability * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
responsiveness * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
assurance * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
emphathy * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
tangibles * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
reliability * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
responsiveness * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
assurance * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
emphathy * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
tangibles * employment 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
reliability * employment 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
responsiveness * employment 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%

Tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy * age
Report
responsivenes
age tangibles reliability s assurance emphathy
1 Mean 3.3697 3.3872 3.4229 3.3910 3.4085
N 94 94 94 94 94
Std. Deviation .38228 .48532 .51721 .51137 .51046
2 Mean 3.3333 3.4333 3.4167 3.3333 3.3000
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .37639 .55737 .49160 .37639 .41473
Total Mean 3.3675 3.3900 3.4225 3.3875 3.4020
N 100 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .38015 .48690 .51333 .50299 .50412

ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
tangibles * age Between (Combined)

.007 1 .007 .051 .822
Groups
Within Groups
14.299 98 .146
Total
14.307 99
reliability * age Between (Combined)

.012 1 .012 .050 .823
Groups
Within Groups 23.458 98 .239
Total
23.470 99
responsiveness * Between (Combined)

.000 1 .000 .001 .977
age Groups
Within Groups
26.087 98 .266
Total
26.087 99
assurance * age Between (Combined)

.019 1 .019 .073 .787
Groups
Total 25.047 99
emphathy * age Between (Combined)

.066 1 .066 .259 .612
Groups

Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
tangibles * age .023 .001
reliability * age .023 .001
responsiveness * age .003 .000
assurance * age .027 .001
emphathy * age .051 .003
Tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy * sex
Report
Sex Tangibles Reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy
1 Mean 3.3947 3.4526 3.5263 3.4474 3.4737
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .38474 .54911 .50618 .49707 .45319
2 Mean 3.3611 3.3753 3.3981 3.3735 3.3852
N 81 81 81 81 81
Std. Deviation .38120 .47369 .51505 .50640 .51651
Total Mean 3.3675 3.3900 3.4225 3.3875 3.4020
N 100 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .38015 .48690 .51333 .50299 .50412

ANOVA Table
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
tangibles * sex Between Groups (Combined) .017 1 .017 .119 .730
Total 14.307 99
reliability * sex Between Groups (Combined) .092 1 .092 .386 .536
Total 23.470 99
responsiveness * sex Between Groups (Combined) .253 1 .253 .959 .330
Total 26.087 99
assurance * sex Between Groups (Combined) .084 1 .084 .330 .567
Total 25.047 99
emphathy * sex Between Groups (Combined) .121 1 .121 .472 .494
Total 25.160 99
Eta Eta Squared
tangibles * sex .035 .001
reliability * sex .063 .004
responsiveness * sex .098 .010
assurance * sex .058 .003
emphathy * sex .069 .005
Tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy * educ
Report
educ tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy
1 Mean 3.3600 3.3000 3.3850 3.3400 3.3640
N 50 50 50 50 50
Std. Deviation .39175 .43753 .47705 .45948 .44573
2 Mean 3.3750 3.4800 3.4600 3.4350 3.4400
N 50 50 50 50 50
Std. Deviation .37201 .52060 .54949 .54354 .55842
Total Mean 3.3675 3.3900 3.4225 3.3875 3.4020
N 100 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .38015 .48690 .51333 .50299 .50412

ANOVA Table
Sum of
tangibles * educ Between Groups (Combined) .006 1 .006 .039 .845
Total 14.307 99
reliability * educ Between Groups (Combined) .810 1 .810 3.503 .064
Total 23.470 99
responsiveness * educ Between Groups (Combined) .141 1 .141 .531 .468
Total 26.087 99
assurance * educ Between Groups (Combined) .226 1 .226 .891 .348
Total 25.047 99
emphathy * educ Between Groups (Combined) .144 1 .144 .566 .454
Total 25.160 99
Eta Eta Squared
tangibles * educ .020 .000
reliability * educ .186 .035
responsiveness * educ .073 .005
assurance * educ .095 .009
emphathy * educ .076 .006
Tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy * employ
ment
Report
Employment tangibles Reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy
1 Mean 3.3527 3.3821 3.4330 3.3616 3.4000
N 56 56 56 56 56
Std. Deviation .33635 .42000 .43036 .46201 .42640
2 Mean 3.4167 3.3867 3.4667 3.4500 3.4533
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .41904 .54755 .47119 .40311 .46884
3 Mean 3.5000 3.6000 4.0000 3.5000 3.8000
N 1 1 1 1 1
Std. Deviation . . . . .
4 Mean 3.2045 3.2182 3.2273 3.2500 3.1818
N 11 11 11 11 11
Std. Deviation .47194 .80724 .87646 .89443 .82682
5 Mean 3.4706 3.5176 3.4412 3.5000 3.4824
N 17 17 17 17 17
Std. Deviation .42281 .38768 .51939 .39528 .52468
Total Mean 3.3675 3.3900 3.4225 3.3875 3.4020
N 100 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .38015 .48690 .51333 .50299 .50412

ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
tangibles * Between (Combined)

.539 4 .135 .930 .450
employment Groups
Total 14.307 99
reliability * Between (Combined)

.649 4 .162 .676 .610
employment Groups
Total 23.470 99
responsiveness * Between (Combined)

.794 4 .199 .746 .563
employment Groups
Total 26.087 99
assurance * Between (Combined)

.532 4 .133 .515 .725
employment Groups
Total 25.047 99
emphathy * Between (Combined)

.841 4 .210 .822 .515
employment Groups
Total 25.160 99
Eta Eta Squared
tangibles * employment .194 .038
reliability * employment .166 .028
responsiveness *
.174 .030
employment
assurance * employment .146 .021
emphathy * employment .183 .033
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>

100
File

Handling missing.

employment
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
[DataSet0]
Statistics
age sex Educ employment
N Valid 100 100 100 100
Missing 0 0 0 0
Frequency Table
age
Valid 1 17 17.0 17.0 17.0
2 71 71.0 71.0 88.0
3 7 7.0 7.0 95.0
4 5 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
sex
Valid 1 24 24.0 24.0 24.0
2 76 76.0 76.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Educ

age
Valid 1 17 17.0 17.0 17.0
2 71 71.0 71.0 88.0
3 7 7.0 7.0 95.0
4 5 5.0 5.0 100.0
Valid 1 10 10.0 10.0 10.0
2 20 20.0 20.0 30.0
3 10 10.0 10.0 40.0
4 20 20.0 20.0 60.0
5 20 20.0 20.0 80.0
6 20 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
employment
Valid 1 46 46.0 46.0 46.0
2 17 17.0 17.0 63.0
3 4 4.0 4.0 67.0
4 13 13.0 13.0 80.0
5 20 20.0 20.0 100.0

age
Valid 1 17 17.0 17.0 17.0
2 71 71.0 71.0 88.0
3 7 7.0 7.0 95.0
4 5 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=t1 t2 t3 t4 r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 re1 re2 re3 re4 a1 a2 a3 a4 e1 e2 e3e4 e5
Descriptives
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in
100
Working Data File
Missing Value Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Handling
Cases Used All non-missing data are used.
Syntax DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=t1 t2 t3 t4 r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 re1

re2 re3 re4 a1 a2 a3 a4 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5
[DataSet0]
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
t1 100 1.00 4.00 2.8600 .58638
t2 100 1.00 4.00 2.8200 .59255
t3 100 2.00 4.00 3.2400 .53409
t4 100 2.00 4.00 2.9800 .55011
r1 100 1.00 4.00 2.6000 .61955
r2 100 1.00 4.00 2.7600 .60503
r3 100 2.00 4.00 2.8600 .60336
r4 100 1.00 4.00 2.7100 .55587
r5 100 1.00 4.00 2.7800 .57875
re1 100 1.00 4.00 2.8200 .65721
re2 100 2.00 4.00 2.9000 .59459
re3 100 1.00 4.00 2.9600 .58465
re4 100 1.00 4.00 2.6000 .61955
a1 99 1.00 32.00 3.0909 2.99009
a2 100 2.00 4.00 2.9500 .59246
a3 100 1.00 4.00 2.7400 .62957
a4 100 1.00 32.00 3.2000 2.97464
e1 100 1.00 4.00 2.8400 .59831
e2 100 1.00 4.00 2.9100 .62109
e3 100 1.00 4.00 2.8300 .55149

MEANS TABLES=tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy BY age sex educ employment
/STATISTICS ANOVA.
Means
Notes
Output Created 07-Mar-2018 15:40: 22
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in
100
Working Data File
as missing.
missing values.

/STATISTICS ANOVA.
[DataSet0]
Cases
tangibles * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
reliability * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
responsiveness * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
assurance * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
emphathy * age 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
tangibles * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
reliability * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
responsiveness * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
assurance * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
emphathy * sex 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
tangibles * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
reliability * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
responsiveness * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
assurance * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
emphathy * educ 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
tangibles * employment 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
reliability * employment 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
responsiveness *
100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
employment
Tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy * age
Report
responsivenes
Age tangibles reliability s assurance emphathy
1 Mean 2.8824 2.6706 2.8088 2.7941 2.7059
N 17 17 17 17 17
Std.
.38647 .34599 .47211 .51717 .59631
Deviation
2 Mean 3.0070 2.7408 2.8380 3.1326 2.8423
N 71 71 71 71 71
Std.
.40305 .47497 .48384 1.48147 .45471
Deviation
3 Mean 2.8571 2.8000 2.7500 2.7500 2.8286
N 7 7 7 7 7
Std.
.37796 .23094 .64550 .35355 .37289
Deviation
4 Mean 3.0000 2.9200 2.7000 2.5500 2.7600
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std.
.50000 .41473 .44721 .41079 .08944
Deviation
Total Mean 2.9750 2.7420 2.8200 3.0192 2.8140
N 100 100 100 100 100
Std.
.40123 .43790 .48602 1.28204 .46385
Deviation
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean

.319 3 .106 .654 .582
Groups
Within Groups
15.618 96 .163
Total
15.938 99

.269 3 .090 .460 .711
Groups
Total 18.984 99
responsiveness * age Between (Combined)

.131 3 .044 .181 .909
Groups
Total 23.385 99

3.383 3 1.128 .679 .567
Groups
Within Groups 159.337 96 1.660
Total 162.720 99

.271 3 .090 .413 .744
Groups
Total 21.300 99
Eta Eta Squared
tangibles * age .142 .020
reliability * age .119 .014
responsiveness * age .075 .006
assurance * age .144 .021
emphathy * age .113 .013
Tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy * sex
Report
sex tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy
1 Mean 3.0104 2.7833 2.7396 2.8021 2.7083
N 24 24 24 24 24
Std. Deviation .37935 .41668 .40700 .40365 .46431
2 Mean 2.9638 2.7289 2.8454 3.0877 2.8474
N 76 76 76 76 76
Std. Deviation .40968 .44626 .50821 1.44907 .46173
Total Mean 2.9750 2.7420 2.8200 3.0192 2.8140
N 100 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .40123 .43790 .48602 1.28204 .46385

ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean

.040 1 .040 .244 .622
Groups
Within Groups
15.898 98 .162
Total
15.937 99

.054 1 .054 .279 .598
Groups
Total 18.984 99
responsiveness * age Between (Combined)

.204 1 .204 .863 .355
Groups
Total 23.385 99

1.488 1 1.488 .905 .344
Groups
Total 162.720 99

.353 1 .353 1.650 .202
Groups
Total 21.300 99
Eta Eta Squared
tangibles * sex .050 .002
reliability * sex .053 .003
responsiveness * sex .093 .009
assurance * sex .096 .009
emphathy * sex .129 .017
Tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy * educ
Report
responsivenes
Educ tangibles reliability s assurance emphathy
1 Mean 2.8750 2.6200 2.4500 2.6500 2.6600
N 10 10 10 10 10
Std. Deviation .39528 .23944 .40483 .31623 .28363
2 Mean 2.9750 2.8000 2.8750 2.9375 2.8300
N 20 20 20 20 20
Std. Deviation .35262 .55060 .56487 .54335 .58138
3 Mean 2.5250 2.5000 2.6750 2.6750 2.5800
N 10 10 10 10 10
Std. Deviation .41583 .38006 .37361 .23717 .49396
4 Mean 2.8750 2.7100 2.8750 2.9250 2.8000
N 20 20 20 20 20
Std. Deviation .36724 .43758 .36724 .37258 .37276
5 Mean 3.2375 3.0300 3.1125 3.0375 3.0800
N 20 20 20 20 20
Std. Deviation .28648 .33261 .36702 .39131 .39683
6 Mean 3.0875 2.6100 2.6750 3.5333 2.7400
N 20 20 20 20 20
Std. Deviation .36522 .38648 .54471 2.73386 .45929
Total Mean 2.9750 2.7420 2.8200 3.0192 2.8140

ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
tangibles * educ Between (Combined)

3.956 5 .791 6.208 .000
Groups
Total 15.937 99
reliability * educ Between (Combined)

2.830 5 .566 3.293 .009
Groups
Total 18.984 99
responsiveness * educ Between (Combined)

3.832 5 .766 3.684 .004
Groups
Total 23.385 99
assurance * educ Between (Combined)

8.152 5 1.630 .992 .427
Groups
Total 162.720 99
emphathy * educ Between (Combined)

2.318 5 .464 2.296 .051
Groups
Total 21.300 99
Eta Eta Squared
tangibles * educ .498 .248
reliability * educ .386 .149
responsiveness * educ .405 .164
assurance * educ .224 .050
emphathy * educ .330 .109

Report
responsivenes
employment tangibles reliability s assurance emphathy
1 Mean 3.0000 2.7870 2.8587 3.1558 2.8435
N 46 46 46 46 46
Std. Deviation .39791 .49424 .49344 1.49594 .49336
2 Mean 3.0588 2.7529 2.8676 2.8382 2.9294
N 17 17 17 17 17
Std. Deviation .30012 .42737 .45171 .37439 .47928
3 Mean 2.9375 2.4500 2.5625 2.5000 2.6500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .12500 .41231 .37500 .45644 .47258
4 Mean 2.8846 2.6615 2.6731 2.6346 2.5846
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation .55542 .35009 .29553 .21926 .49974
5 Mean 2.9125 2.7400 2.8375 3.2125 2.8300
N 20 20 20 20 20
Std. Deviation .41577 .36764 .60847 1.67661 .31970
Total Mean 2.9750 2.7420 2.8200 3.0192 2.8140
N 100 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .40123 .43790 .48602 1.28204 .46385

ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
tangibles * educ Between (Combined)

.338 4 .085 .515 .725
Groups
Total 15.937 99
reliability * educ Between (Combined)

.520 4 .130 .669 .615
Groups
Total 18.984 99
responsiveness * educ Between (Combined)

.659 4 .165 .689 .601
Groups
Total 23.385 99
assurance * educ Between (Combined)

5.163 4 1.291 .778 .542
Groups
Total 162.720 99
emphathy * educ Between (Combined)

1.063 4 .266 1.248 .296
Groups
Total 21.300 99
Tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance emphathy
* employment
Eta Eta Squared
tangibles * employment .146 .021
reliability * employment .166 .027
responsiveness *
.168 .028
employment
assurance * employment .178 .032
emphathy * employment .223 .050
NEW FILE.
DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.
MEANS TABLES=tane rele rese asse empe BY tanc relc resc assc empc
/STATISTICS ANOVA.
Means
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in
100
Working Data File
as missing.
missing values.

MEANS TABLES=tane rele rese asse empe BY tanc relc resc

assc empc
/STATISTICS ANOVA.

[DataSet1]
Cases
tane * tanc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
rele * tanc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
rese * tanc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
asse * tanc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
empe * tanc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
tane * relc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
rele * relc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
rese * relc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
asse * relc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
empe * relc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
tane * resc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
rele * resc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
rese * resc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
asse * resc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
empe * resc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
tane * assc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
rele * assc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%
rese * assc 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%

tane rele rese asse empe * tanc
Report
Tanc tane rele rese asse empe
Mean 3.2500 3.4000 3.5000 3.7500 4.0000

1.75
N 1 1 1 1 1
Mean 3.6667 3.8667 3.9167 3.8333 3.8000

2
N 3 3 3 3 3
Std. Deviation .38188 .23094 .14434 .28868 .34641
Mean 3.0000 3.2000 3.0357 3.0714 3.1143

2.25
N 7 7 7 7 7
Std. Deviation .20412 .48990 .56695 .42608 .45981
Mean 3.4167 3.6000 3.6667 3.5833 3.4667

2.5
N 3 3 3 3 3
Std. Deviation .38188 .34641 .28868 .38188 .30551
Mean 3.2333 3.3200 3.3667 3.1833 3.3067

2.75
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .35940 .54929 .50768 .57838 .51195
Mean 3.3882 3.3368 3.3684 3.4013 3.4211

3
N 38 38 38 38 38
Std. Deviation .41385 .53647 .58914 .54071 .59872
Mean 3.4773 3.4364 3.5114 3.4432 3.3636

3.25
N 22 22 22 22 22
Std. Deviation .35279 .43485 .44640 .44942 .42600
Mean 3.2857 3.4000 3.4286 3.4643 3.5143

3.5
N 7 7 7 7 7
Std. Deviation .22493 .36515 .27817 .41904 .32367

ANOVA Table
Sum of
tane * tanc Between Groups (Combined) 2.286 9 .254 1.902 .062
Total 14.307 99
rele * tanc Between Groups (Combined) 1.800 9 .200 .831 .590
Total 23.470 99
rese * tanc Between Groups (Combined) 2.809 9 .312 1.207 .301
Total 26.087 99
asse * tanc Between Groups (Combined) 2.662 9 .296 1.189 .312
Total 25.047 99
empe * tanc Between Groups (Combined) 2.066 9 .230 .894 .534
Total 25.160 99
Eta Eta Squared
tane * tanc .400 .160
rele * tanc .277 .077
rese * tanc .328 .108
asse * tanc .326 .106
empe * tanc .287 .082
tane rele rese asse empe * relc
Report
Relc tane rele rese asse empe
1.6 Mean 3.0000 3.0000 3.7500 3.2500 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
1.8 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1389 3.4000 3.3611 3.3333 3.4000
N 9 9 9 9 9
Std. Deviation .33333 .47958 .45262 .41458 .48990
2.2 Mean 3.2000 3.3200 3.5000 3.3500 3.2400
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .32596 .68702 .58630 .74162 .58992
2.4 Mean 3.2308 3.2615 3.2500 3.1923 3.2923
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation .25944 .42728 .45644 .37016 .41324
2.6 Mean 3.4231 3.4462 3.5192 3.4808 3.5846
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation .42555 .53012 .50478 .60778 .47231
2.8 Mean 3.3750 3.3333 3.2083 3.3125 3.3000
N 12 12 12 12 12
Std. Deviation .43301 .44586 .46262 .40064 .56246
3 Mean 3.4632 3.4588 3.5588 3.4853 3.4529
N 34 34 34 34 34
Std. Deviation .41347 .51293 .58730 .58692 .58736

ANOVA Table
Sum of
tane * relc Between Groups (Combined) 1.683 11 .153 1.067 .397
Total 14.307 99
rele * relc Between Groups (Combined) 1.390 11 .126 .504 .896
Total 23.470 99
rese * relc Between Groups (Combined) 2.179 11 .198 .729 .708
Total 26.087 99
asse * relc Between Groups (Combined) 1.287 11 .117 .433 .937
Total 25.047 99
empe * relc Between Groups (Combined) 1.169 11 .106 .390 .957
Total 25.160 99
Eta Eta Squared
tane * relc .343 .118
rele * relc .243 .059
rese * relc .289 .084
asse * relc .227 .051
empe * relc .216 .046
tane rele rese asse empe * resc
Report
resc tane rele rese asse empe
1.25 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
1.5 Mean 3.0000 3.8000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.3333 3.5667 3.5833 3.5000 3.4333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .40825 .34448 .40825 .47434 .42740
2.25 Mean 3.2222 3.4444 3.5000 3.4444 3.4889
N 9 9 9 9 9
Std. Deviation .19543 .35746 .53033 .37034 .38873
2.5 Mean 3.3654 3.4769 3.5000 3.3846 3.4154
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation .37660 .46575 .46771 .54596 .48622
2.75 Mean 3.2222 3.1000 3.1667 3.2222 3.2444
N 18 18 18 18 18
Std. Deviation .47658 .51905 .52159 .52081 .59233
3 Mean 3.5074 3.4529 3.5000 3.4706 3.4471
N 34 34 34 34 34
Std. Deviation .37176 .53328 .59671 .60228 .59505
3.25 Mean 3.3056 3.3111 3.3889 3.2778 3.4000
N 9 9 9 9 9
Std. Deviation .27323 .33333 .28260 .23199 .26458

ANOVA Table
Sum of
tane * resc Between Groups (Combined) 1.616 10 .162 1.133 .347
Total 14.307 99
rele * resc Between Groups (Combined) 2.378 10 .238 1.003 .447
Total 23.470 99
rese * resc Between Groups (Combined) 2.008 10 .201 .742 .683
Total 26.087 99
asse * resc Between Groups (Combined) 1.473 10 .147 .556 .845
Total 25.047 99
empe * resc Between Groups (Combined) .931 10 .093 .342 .967
Total 25.160 99
Eta Eta Squared
tane * resc .336 .113
rele * resc .318 .101
rese * resc .277 .077
asse * resc .243 .059
empe * resc .192 .037
tane rele rese asse empe * assc
Report
Assc Tane Rele rese asse empe
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Report
1.5 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.1250 3.4500 3.2500 3.2500 3.2500
N 4 4 4 4 4
Std. Deviation .25000 .52599 .50000 .50000 .50000
2.25 Mean 3.1250 3.2333 3.1250 3.1667 3.2333
N 6 6 6 6 6
Std. Deviation .34460 .36697 .51841 .43780 .44572
2.5 Mean 3.4605 3.4947 3.5921 3.4868 3.5368
N 19 19 19 19 19
Std. Deviation .35613 .41830 .40148 .42877 .42715
2.75 Mean 3.4667 3.4533 3.4667 3.3833 3.3867
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .39940 .49838 .46162 .41043 .38148
3 Mean 3.3611 3.3556 3.3958 3.3958 3.4000
N 36 36 36 36 36
Std. Deviation .41595 .54952 .59274 .63913 .60285
3.25 Mean 3.2500 3.0000 3.1000 3.1000 2.9200
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .35355 .37417 .57554 .28504 .57619
3.5 Mean 3.4687 3.4250 3.5625 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .33905 .47132 .32043 .25877 .28158

Eta Eta Squared
tane * assc
.322 .104
rele * assc
.331 .110
rese * assc
.354 .125
asse * assc
.310 .096
empe * assc
.362 .131
tane rele rese asse empe * empc
Report
empc tane rele rese asse empe
1.4 Mean 3.2500 3.6000 3.7500 3.5000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
1.6 Mean 3.2500 3.8000 3.2500 3.0000 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
1.8 Mean 3.0000 3.0000 3.7500 3.2500 3.4000
N 1 1 1 1 1
2 Mean 3.4000 3.5600 3.6500 3.4500 3.4400
N 5 5 5 5 5
Std. Deviation .45415 .38471 .41833 .41079 .38471
2.2 Mean 3.2500 3.4750 3.4375 3.4375 3.5250
N 8 8 8 8 8
Std. Deviation .29881 .36936 .41726 .41726 .45277
2.4 Mean 3.5000 3.4667 3.4167 3.3333 3.4667
N 3 3 3 3 3
Std. Deviation .25000 .11547 .14434 .28868 .30551
2.6 Mean 3.2143 3.3000 3.2321 3.2500 3.1714
N 14 14 14 14 14
Std. Deviation .39048 .54208 .58395 .58835 .48900
2.8 Mean 3.3833 3.3067 3.3667 3.2833 3.2933
N 15 15 15 15 15
Std. Deviation .41043 .58489 .54989 .58909 .63185

ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
tane * empc Between Groups (Combined) 1.045 12 .087 .572 .859
Total 14.307 99
rele * empc Between Groups (Combined) 1.287 12 .107 .421 .952
Total 23.470 99
rese * empc Between Groups (Combined) 1.361 12 .113 .399 .960
Total 26.087 99
asse * empc Between Groups (Combined) 1.488 12 .124 .458 .934
Total 25.047 99
empe * empc Between Groups (Combined) 1.666 12 .139 .514 .900
Total 25.160 99
Eta Eta Squared
tane * empc .270 .073
rele * empc .234 .055
rese * empc .228 .052
asse * empc .244 .059
empe * empc .257 .066
Correlations
expectation satisfaction
expectation Pearson
1 .132
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .191
N 100 100
satisfaction Pearson
.132 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .191
N 100 100

Alvin Saracho Edited Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Alvin Saracho Edited Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alvin Saracho Edited Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private School in Tanauan: Basis

for Marketing Strategy

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate School

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master in Business

DR. FLORA V. JAVIER

Dr. Francis Ashipaoloye Dr. Noel Huevos

Comprehensive Examination _____________ Date: _______________

Dr. FRANCIS KAYODE ASHIPAOLOYE

Title: Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private

School in Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy.

Author: Alvin Siman Saracho

Degree: Master in Business Administration

School: Lyceum of the Philippines University- Batangas

School Year: 2016-2018

Adviser: Dr. Joy C. Ashipaoloye

With the progress of corporate brands in the Philippines and their

participation in international markets, brands have turned from business circles to

students as the customers. Student satisfaction has thus become important in

on a specific course in marketing specifically in terms of introducing to the

Sciences looks to grow, as a well-established educational institution, that is why

through this research, a marketing plan that emphasizes strategies to increase

customer base will be proposed at the end of this study.

Descriptive method of research was utilized. Participants were the 100

students for evaluating student satisfaction (perception). The participants of the

size is 178 for all the group.

Significant result revealed majority of the incoming college students were

equally in terms of educational attainment. In terms of employment of parents,

mostly were employed followed by unemployed and OFW.

were the lowest in terms of perception.

There is no significant difference in assessment on brand image

(expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and

empathy when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of

parent. There is significant difference in assessment on brand image (expectation)

in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy when

grouped to educational level.

There is no significant difference in difference in assessment on customer

satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance

significant difference in assessment on student satisfaction (expectation) in terms of

tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy when grouped to

brands which will lead to student/customer satisfaction. School brand managers

needs of students in order to understand their interests and necessities, developing

suitable services in order to improve the brand equity.

media for continuous communication toward strategic brand enhancement. The

enhance factors related to tangibles, assurance and responsiveness. In terms of

brand image, a marketing plan should also focus on maintaining strategically

positive image of the school.

Additional research is needed to fully understand how satisfaction arises

service quality of the educational units. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the

judge brand image and service quality.

Keywords: brand image, student, customer satisfaction, marketing

This Thesis is dedicated to God, my wife, my family and DMMCIHS.

Figures Title Page

1 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of age

2 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of age

3 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of gender

4 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of gender

5 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of educational

Comprehensive Examination _ Date: ___