• Save
HP Brand Equity
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

HP Brand Equity

on

  • 3,023 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,023
Views on SlideShare
3,023
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    HP Brand Equity HP Brand Equity Document Transcript

    • 1
    • Brand Tracker Phase II – Brand Equity Measurement A report submitted to Prof. GovindrajanIn partial fulfillment of the requirement of the course Product and Brand Management th On 4 September 2011 By Rakesh Gakare (B10021) Sharath Ghosh (B10024) Shishir Ramkumar (B10025) Siddharth Goutam (B10030) 2
    • Executive SummaryBrand Equity as a concept tries to answer a fundamental question-whether brands truly are assets thatenable the business to generate superior returns over time? As such it a strategic tool but is almostimpossible to quantify. There are many models which try to measure Brand Equity taking intoconsideration a varied range of parameters like differentiation, relevance, satisfaction etc. but no modelhas been able to measure brand equity in its entirety yet.In this phase of the brand tracker project we have undertaken a study to effectively measure the equityof the brand HP. The study has been conducted with the help of two models: (i) Brand Equity Eleven (avariance of Aaker’s Brand Equity Ten model) and (ii) Multi attribute regression model. The study wasconducted on a sample size of 50, the instrument of data collection was an online questionnaire andappropriate statistical tools were used wherever appropriate.Brand Equity Eleven model tries to measure brand equity by taking into consideration 11 attributes thatin our opinion build up to brand equity. A comparative study was done with 3 other competitors ofHP(Dell, IBM and Apple) across these 11 attributes on a rating scale and a Brand Equity Index wascreated at the end to see how each brand varies from the base for each parameter. HP was positioned3rd amongst the competition which lead to the conclusion that it has a low brand equity. HP needs towork on its after sales service also it should try to improve the quality of its product through innovationto make it reliable as well as value for money product and also try to differentiate itself from itscompetitors.The multi attribute regression model was developed by the group with consumer buying behavior whilepurchasing technological products as its base. This model analyzed the various factors that consumerstake into consideration while buying a technological product & their relative importance and what is theposition of these factors in the consumers mind when it comes to the brand HP. Then these attributeswere clubbed under the pillars Brand Loyalty, Price Premia and Leveragability. Regression analysis wasdone to establish the relationship of the factors with the pillars then a further regression was done tofind the brand equity on the basis of the aforementioned pillars. Statistical looks like Anova, Multipleregression models etc. were used to measure brand equity. From this model we found that HP is aleverageable brand but it has problems with quality and after sales service. It has improve its position inthe field of after sales service by coming out with concepts like on site servicing, replaceable partswarranty etc also it should try to improve its quality by coming out with reliable and value for money soas to improve brand loyalty and its ability to charge a premium. HP can try and get into the automobile,FMCG, accessories and health care sector. It was also found that Brand Equity of HP is very sensitive tocustomer service, value for money, price and quality attributes, any change in these attributes will leadto a huge change in brand equity of HP. 3
    • Table of ContentsExecutive Summary…………………………………………………………..…………….….….. 3Defining Brand Equity…….……………………………………………….…………………….. 5-9Measuring Brand Equity – Aaker’s Brand Equity Eleven .…………………….… 10-12Measuring Brand Equity – Multi Attribute Regression Model ……………..… 13-18Recommendation…………………………………………………………………………………… 19-22Annexure…………..…………………………………………………………………………………… 23-31Reference………….……………………………………………………………….…………………… 32 4
    • 5
    • How Brand Equity Generates Value? Provides Value to Customer by Enhancing Reduced Marketing Costs Customer’s: Trade Leverage  Interpretation/ Attracting New Customers Processing of Brand Loyalty Create Awareness Information Reassurance  Confidence in Time to Respond to Competitive Threts the Purchase Decision  Use Satisfaction Anchor to which other Associations could be Attached Brand Awareness Liking Signal of Commitment Provides Value to Firm Brand to be Considered by Enhancing: Brand Equity  Efficiency and Reason-To-Buy Effectiveness of Differenciate/Position Marketing Perceived Quality Price Programs Channel Member Interest  Brand Loyalty Extentions  Prices/Margins  Brand Extensions Help Process/Retrive Information  Trade Leverage Reason-to-Buy  Competitive Brand Associations Create positive attitude/feeling Advantage Extentions Other Propeitary Competitive Advantage Brand Assets 6
    • Conceptualizing Brand Equity Drive Toward or Against Brand Perception/ Customer behavior Worth of theProduct Knowledge Discrimination Brand structure and value Brand Brand Equity Communication and Contacts (Surplus ±) 7
    • What is Brand Equity?Brand Equity is the marketing effects and outcomes that a product has with its brand name compared towhat it would get if the same product did not have a brand name. The fact is that the company thatowns a well-known brand can charge a premium from its customers. The fact is that, the consumer’sknowledge plays an important role here. The consumer’s knowledge about the brand makes themanufacturers and the advertisers act differently or take different measures for the marketing of thebrand. Brand equity is one of the factors that can increase the financial value of the brand to the brandowner. Even though brand equity is strategically crucial it is at the same time almost impossible toquantify.The purpose of brand equity metrics is to measure the value of the brand. A brand encompasses thename, logo, and perceptions that identify a product, a service or a provider in the minds of theconsumers. This takes the form of advertising, packaging and other forms of marketing communicationand becomes the focus of the relationship with the consumers. The 3 primary metrics that is used tomeasure or quantify brand equity are i) Loyalty towards the brand, ii) Ability of the brand to charge apremium and iii) Ability of the brand to leverage its brand name through brand extensions.The concept of brand equity began in the 1980’s by some advertising agencies and was popularized byAaker through his bestselling book Managing Brand Equity. Since then there have been majordevelopments in the field of brand equity with various agencies developing their own models toquantify this intangible power of an intangibleasset. Some of these models are:  Equity Engine: Equity Engine, developed by Research International, is one of the most elegantly parsimonious models of brand equity. Essentially, it expresses brand equity as a combination of the functional benefits delivered by the brand (performance) and the emotional benefits (affinity). Equity Engine incorporates a form of conjoint methodology that establishes the price premium that a brands equity will support while still maintaining a "good value for money" rating from customers.  Equity Builder: This method developed by the Ipsos Group is unique amongst all the models created to measure brand equity focuses on establishing the emotional component of brand equity. 8
    •  Kevin Lane Kellers Model: This is a proprietary tool which is used to measure brand equity by looking at the brand as a blend of the rational and emotional which are measured in terms of brand performance and imagery. Customer’s relationship to a brand is then plotted in terms of their altitude on the pyramid of engagement and their relative bias towards a rationally dominant or emotionally dominant relationship is established. BrandDynamics: This model is developed by Millward Brown with the notion of an engagement pyramid as its foundation. This approach classifies the relationship that a customer has with a brand into one of the five stages: presence, relevance, performance, advantage, and bonding. Winning Brands: This methodology has been developed by ACNielsen. Winning Brands begins from a behavioral observation of brand equity. Brand equity is then measured in terms of a customers frequency of purchase and the price premium paid. BrandDynamics: This model is developed by Millward Brown with the notion of an engagement pyramid as its foundation. This approach classifies the relationship that a customer has with a brand into one of the five stages: presence, relevance, performance, advantage, and bonding. Winning Brands: This methodology has been developed by ACNielsen. Winning Brands begins from a behavioral observation of brand equity. Brand equity is then measured in terms of a customers frequency of purchase and the price premium paid. 9
    • 10
    • Measuring Brand Equity:There exists many-a-model to measure brand equity but there isn’t any one single model that canquantify this abstract concept known as Brand Equity in all its glory. We have used two models tomeasure this concept:  A variance of the famous Brand Equity Ten developed by David Aaker  A multi attribute regression model based on consumer buying behaviorBrand Equity Ten:David Aaker has defined Brand Equity as a set of assets (and liabilities) linked to a brands name andsymbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or thatfirms customers. Aaker highlights 10 attributes of a brand that can be used to assess its strength. Theseinclude Differentiation, Satisfaction, Perceived Quality, Leadership, Perceived Value, Brand Personality,Organizational Associations, Brand Awareness, Market Share and Distribution coverage. In developing avariance of this model what we have done is replace the organizational association, market share andbrand personality parameters with a price premium so as to gauge the perception of the consumersalong the metrics of brand loyalty and the brand’s ability to charge a premium. In order to analyze thebrand equity of HP it was compared to three of its primary competitors- Dell, IBM and Apple.Aaker doesnt weight the attributes or combine them in an overall score, as he believes any weightingwould be arbitrary and would vary among brands and categories. Rather he recommends tracking eachattribute separately. Therefore we have developed a Brand Equity Index which was developed with theoverall score that the brands received in comparison to a base figure. The being the average score thatthe respondents can give.(Average rate for each parameter 3, no of respondents 50 and average score 50*3=150)Analysis of the model with individual parameters: (for the calculations please refer to Brand Equity Excel sheet attached)  Positive variation from the base figure- Positive Brand Equity  Negative variation from the base figure-Negative Brand EquityBrand awareness: HP has a score which is only 15% above the base. Position of HP 3rd .Technological leadership: HP is 24% higher than the base but apple has a 52% higher score over thebase. Position of HP under this parameter is 3rd.Worldwide presence: HP has 40% higher score in this parameter than the base while Dell has score 3%more. Position of HP 2nd. Willingness to pay a premium: Under this parameter HP has a negative 3% variation from the basescore while the average variance is 6%. This positive variance is the result of higher inclination ofrespondents to pay higher premium to Apple brand. Position of HP 3rd 11
    • Willingness to recommend: Willingness to recommend is the ultimate test of customer satisfaction and in this factor, HP fails miserably in comparison with other competitors as it has only a 3% variance from the base only while the average variance is 19% positive and Dell has 37% positive variance from the base in this category. Position of HP 3rd Reliability of the brand: The average variance is 23% above the base but HP has only 14% variance from the base. This shows that HP has a lower reliability perception in comparison to the industry average. Position of HP 3rd. Value for money: In this parameter, HP has a very low variance of 5% from the base while Dell leads this segment with a 41% variance. Position of HP 4th Innovativeness: In this parameter there is positive average variance of 22% from the base. In this regard also HP fails miserably by having only 11% variance from the base while Apple has a 55% positive variance from the base. Position of HP 3rd Quality: In this pillar for determining brand equity HP has only 15% positive variance while Apple is the leader in this segment with a 50% positive variance from the base. Position of HP 3nd Customer service quality: In this category Dell is clear-cut winner with 43% positive variance while HP just manages to hang on with 1% positive variance. Position of HP 3rd Differentiated: HP scores higher than the average variance with a 15% higher score from the base. Position of HP 2nd Overall Experience: HP has a negative variance of 8% from the base in this pillar for measuring brand equity. Position of HP 3rd Brand Equity Index250200150 Assumed Average100 Actual Average50 IBM HP 0 Dell Apple 12
    • 13
    • Multi Attribute Regression Model(for detailed calculation please refer to the brand equity excel sheet attached)This model has been designed keeping in mind the consumer buying behavior towards technologicalproducts. This model looks at the three metric of brand equity-brand loyalty, price premia andleveragability. This model looks at two things the relevance of attributes in the mind of a consumer andposition of that attribute in the respondent’s mind when it comes to the brand HP. A regression modelwas developed to quantify the three metrics as per the independent variables that is related to them. Itwas done by creating a best fit line for each. The best fit line equation is Y = (mx1+mx2+…+mxn)+C, where m= R2(slope of the line) X= independent attribute Y= dependent attributeFor each of the metric on which the Brand equity has to be measured attributes were assigned to eachon the basis of a correlation and proximity matrix. Every attribute was then given a weightage as per therelevance of the attribute in the mind of the consumers. 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Agree 15 Neutral 10 Disagree 5 0The above graph shows how the weightages were derived. 14
    • Brand LoyaltyBased on the correlation and the proximity matrix, 7 independent variable attributes have been takenand measured against a dependent variable or attribute. Individual weightage of the attributes havebeen taken according to the relevance of those attributes in consumer’s mind and thereby a score forHP is generated. A total score is also generated by multiplying the weights and the maximum possiblerates that the respondent has given. Accordingly HP was analyzed. The percentage score have beengenerated to show the position of HP and the scope of improvement. 250 200 150 100 Total Score 50 HP Score 0Ability to Charge PremiumThe percentage score of HP has been generated in a similar way as shown above. Here an ANOVA andregression analysis has been done to get an overall picture of the perception of the consumers aboutthe attributes among various brands vis-a-vis the willingness of the consumers to pay a premium andaccordingly the recommendations are made. 180 160 140 120 100 Total Score 80 60 HP Score 40 20 0 Pay Innovative Quality Price CS Premium 15
    • Brand LeveragabilityThe analysis has been done taking into consideration how differentiated the brand is in the minds of theconsumer and then compared with the importance of the attribute differentiation in the mind of theconsumers. A hypothesis has been taken which states that HP is a leverageable brand. By executingANOVA and Regression analysis the hypothesis has been accepted. The bar graph below shows thewillingness of the consumer to buy diversified products such as cars apparels etc. produced bytechnological brands and the willingness to buy the same diversified products if produced by HP. I agree that technological companies can make the followings healthcare 20% car 27% Accessory FMCG 33% 20% 35 30 25 Agree 20 Neutral 15 Disagree HP 10 5 0 car FMCG Accessory healthcare 16
    • Brand Equity combining 3 PillarsBrand equity has been calculated by using the best fit line regression equation keeping Brand Equity onthe Y axis and the 3 pillars on the X axis. This shows the sensitivity and the strength of the relationbetween the overall brand equity and the pillars and also shows the strength of the relation in betweenthe 3 pillars. R square = 0.390 R square is the slope of the regression line which shows how sensitive is the brand equity to the 3 pillarsthat constitute the brand equity. Similarly R square for the different attributes that make up each of thepillar have been calculated which depicts how sensitive is the following attribute to the final BrandEquity.The overall scores have been calculated of each of the 3 pillars for different consumer responses. Thecorrelation and the variations among the responses for different attributes of the individual pillars havebeen calculated and thereby weights have been provided. The Brand Equity has been calculated bytaking the average of the values of the 3 pillars provided by individual respondents and has beenincorporated in the Y axis. The X axis constitutes of the 3 pillars. Accordingly a best fit line has beengenerated using regression analysis.The diagram below shows the regression line. (l-leveragability, p-premium and lo-loyalty) 5 4.5 4 3.5 l 3 Axis Title p 2.5 lo 2 Linear (l) 1.5 1 Linear (p) 0.5 Linear (lo) 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Axis TitleThe above graph plots the 3 pillars that define Brand Equity. Here Brand Loyalty, Brand Leveragabilityand Price premia are the dependent variables while the attributes pertaining to them are theindependent variables. 17
    • 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 Series1 2 Linear (Series1) 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5The above graph shows the best fit line for Brand Equity of HP , brand equity= dependent variable whileBrand Loyalty, Brand Leveragability and Price premia are the dependent variables 18
    • 19
    • Recommendations:Brand Equity Eleven  In the brand awareness parameter HP is ranked 3rd amongst its competitors. HP has to improve its standing in this category through better communication with its existing as well as potential consumers  HP historically has been considered a leader when it comes to technology but at this point time in the minds of its consumers it is trailing behind Apple and IBM. This shows that HP has to come up with more innovative as well as technologically advanced products.  From the survey it was seen that people are not willing to pay a premium for HP products. This ability of a brand to command a premium comes from various attributes like innovation, reliability, quality and after sales service. As HP scores low in all these attributes its ability to charge a premium also gets negatively affected. It should do something with these individuals attributes to get back this power like:  Improve its product through R & D so as to seem like a reliable and a qualitative product in the minds of its consumers  Come up with innovative and differentiated products to counter its competition  Improve its after sales service as in case of technological products it is critical, HP can take a leaf out of Dell’s book for after sales service  HP is placed 3rd in the parameter of recommendation to others. It is disturbing as willingness to recommend is most critical measure of brand satisfaction. This shows that its customers aren’t happy with the brand. As satisfaction is a function of all the 10 attributes under satisfaction. Improvement in these attributes will lead to an automatic increase in the satisfaction parameter.Multi Attribute Regression Model (for detailed calculations please refer the attached excel sheet) Pillars Percentage Score of HP Percent scope of improvement Brand Loyalty 63.5 36.5 Ability to charge Premium 62.42 35.58  Brand Loyalty: From the above figure we see that there is 36.5% scope for improvement, it can be done by improving HP’s position in the attributes that constitute brand loyalty namely- satisfaction, willingness to pay premium, recommendation, awareness, reliability, quality, customer service and value for money.  Ability to charge premium: As the table shows that even though HP can charge a premium there is still a scope for improvement to the extent of 35.58%. This can be done by innovating the products and improving their quality(both the product and the after sales service) 20
    •  Brand Leveragability: From the analysis of the brand it was found that HP is a leverageable brand. As per the graphs shown previously (in the analysis portion) it can be deduced that HP can safely enter into automobiles, accessories, FMCG and health care products.Overall Recommendations:  Importance of the attributes and their position for each brand: 4.5 4 3.5 3 importance 2.5 adjusted importance 2 1.5 ibm 1 hp 0.5 dell 0 appleFrom the above graph we see that HP needs to work on its after sales service as it is the most importantcriteria for a technological product. The second most important criteria are quality followed by value formoney. In these two HP is lower than Apple and Dell. HP need to work on improving the quality of theproduct which will lead to the product being reliable and a value for money product.  Position of each brand in the following attributes: 5 4 3 ibm 2 1 hp 0 dell apple 21
    • HP has to improve its awareness through better communication strategies and has to improve itsstanding in recommendation and leadership parameters by improving its product along the linesmentioned above. This will automatically lead to an improvement across the three metrics which willenable HP to improve its brand equity  Brand Equity 4.5 Attributes Ranks as per 2 4 R Reliability 5 3.5 Value for 2 3 money Innovation 7 2.5 Quality 4 Series1 2 Price 3 Linear (Series1) Customer 1 1.5 service Differentiation 6 1 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5The most sensitive feature that affects brand equity is customer service, followed by value for money,price and then quality. So any increase or decrease in these parameters will have a huge impact on thebrand equity. A change towards the positive will increase the brand equity while a negative change willdecrease it.*The survey result might be a bit skewed towards the negative side as just before this exercise startedthere was this news that proclaimed HP’s plan to sell off its PC and Pad division. 22
    • 23
    • Questionnaire1. On a scale of 1-5 rate your awareness (knowledge about the brand its logo, tagline, etc.) for the followingbrands (1-not at all aware , 5- highly aware) * 1 (not at all 5 (highly 2 3 4 aware) aware) IBM HP DELL APPLE2. On a scale of 1-5 rate the following brands on the basis of its technological leadership position viz-a-viz itscompetitors (1-lagging behind others , 5- leader) * 1 (lagging behind 2 3 4 5 (leader) others) IBM HP DELL APPLE3. On a scale of 1-5 rate the following brands on the basis of world wide presence (1-relatively lower worldwide presence , 5-relatively higher world wide presence) * 1 (relatively 5 (relatively lower world higher world 2 3 4 wide wide presence) presence) IBM HP DELL APPLE 24
    • 4. On a scale of 1-5 rate your willingness to pay a premium for the following brands (1-not at all willing topay a premium , 5- absolutely willing to pay a premium) * 1 (not at all 5 (absolutely willing to 2 3 4 willing to pay pay a a premium) premium) IBM HP DELL APPLE5. On a scale of 1-5 rate your willingness to recommend the following brands to others (1-not at allrecommended , 5- highly recommended) * 1 (not at all 5 (highly 2 3 4 recommended) recommended) IBM HP DELL APPLE6. When I buy a technological product, I look for reliability * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree7. On a scale of 1-5 rate your how reliable are the following brands (1-not at all reliable, 5- highly reliable) * 1 (not at all 5 (highly 2 3 4 reliable) reliable) IBM HP 25
    • 1 (not at all 5 (highly 2 3 4 reliable) reliable) DELL APPLE8. When I buy a technological product, I look for value for money * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree9. On a scale of 1-5 rate the following brands on the parameter of value for money (1-not at all value formoney, 5- high value for money) * 1 (not at all 5 (high value for 2 3 4 value for money) money) IBM HP DELL APPLE10. When I buy a technological product, I look for how innovative is the brand * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree11. On a scale of 1-5 rate the following brands on the parameter of their innovativeness (1-not at all valueinnovative, 5- highly innovative) * 1 (not at all 5 (highly 2 3 4 innovative) innovative) IBM HP 26
    • 1 (not at all 5 (highly 2 3 4 innovative) innovative) DELL APPLE12. When I buy a technological product, I look for quality of its offerings * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree13. On a scale of 1-5 rate the following brands on the parameter of the quality of their offerings (1-inferiorquality, 5- superior quality) * 1 (inferior 5 (superior 2 3 4 quality) quality) IBM HP DELL APPLE14. When I buy a technological product, I look for the price of its offerings * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree15. Rate the following brands on the parameter of price * bargain low price, low price, price - getting too quality is quality is value for expensive expensive suspect not suspect money 27
    • bargain low price, low price, price - getting too quality is quality is value for expensive expensive suspect not suspect money IBM HP DELL APPLE16. When I buy a technological product, I look for the quality of customer service * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree17. On a scale of 1-5 rate the following brands on the parameter of customer service quality (1-inferiorcustomer service, 5- superior customer service) * 1 (inferior 5 (superior customer 2 3 4 customer service) service) IBM HP DELL APPLE18. When I buy a technological product, I look how differentiated is the brand in its offerings * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree19. On a scale of 1-5 rate the following brands on the parameter of how differentiated are their offerings (1-not at all differentiated, 5- highly differentiated) * 28
    • 1 (not at all 5 (highly 2 3 4 differentiated) differentiated) IBM HP DELL APPLE20. I believe that technological brands can make great cars * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree21. My willingness to buy HP cars * 1 2 3 4 5not at all willing to buy highly willing to buy22. I believe that technological brands can make great FMCG products (body wash, shampoo,carbonateddrinks, etc.) * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree23. My willingness to buy HP FMCG products (body wash, shampoo,carbonated drinks, etc.) * 1 2 3 4 5not at all willing to buy highly willing to buy24. I believe that technological brands can make great accessories (watches, apparels, belts, shoes, bags,etc.) * Strongly Disagree Disagree 29
    • Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree25. My willingness to buy HP accessories (watches, apparels, belts, shoes, bags, etc.) * 1 2 3 4 5not at all willing to buy highly willing to buy26. I believe that technological brands can make great health care products (health drinks, energy drinks,etc.) * Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree27. My willingness to buy HP healthcare products * 1 2 3 4 5not at all willing to buy highly willing to buy28. Choose the personality that best describes IBM *You can choose multiple boxes Professional Cool/Trendy Competent Accomplished Innovative29. Choose the personality that best describes HP *You can choose multiple boxes Professional Cool/Trendy Competent Accomplished 30
    • Innovative30. Choose the personality that best describes DELL *You can choose multiple boxes Professional Cool/Trendy Competent Accomplished Innovative31. Choose the personality that best describes APPLE *You can choose multiple boxes Professional Cool/Trendy Competent Accomplished Innovative32. My overall experience with the following brands (if I have used any of the following) have been 1 (Highly 5 (Highly 2 3 4 Dissatisfied) Satisfied) IBM HP DELL APPLE 31
    •     32 