1.

INTRODUCTION
The rich content of scanner data enables the estimation of structural econometric models to be used to investigate market power and analyze policy. Recent advances in structural approaches to empirical market power analysis combines estimated demand functions with game-theoretic models of a particular industry to estimate its competitive nature. However, economic and econometric theory is often silent on the specific econometric estimators that should be employed. Each one having similar, but differing restrictions on the assumptions of the underlying sample from which the data is collected. As a result, the objective of this study is to empirically compare several different estimators of a supply model, and look at the differences each one implies with respect to the nature of the competitive game the carbonated soft drink (CSD) market plays. The CSD category is used in our empirical analysis for several reasons. First, the industry is highly concentrated at the manufacturing level, being largely dominated by two manufacturers. However, retail outlets have recently been introducing, and pushing, their own private label brands as a way of expanding category profits. Second, the industry is well known among a wide range of consumers not only in the U.S., but largely throughout the world. Thus many retail outlets carry the same set of products making the competitive nature of the CSD industry an empirical question at not only the manufacturer level, but also at the retail level. Finally, given the long history of the industry, particularly in the U.S., steady state equilibrium is likely to exist. Thus the CSD market is an ideal category for comparing the competitive nature implied from several different econometric estimators. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section we present the econometric model used to analyze the market power of the CSD market. This section begins with a brief overview of the demand and supply models used, followed by their specification.

1.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

Around 1984 the first branded soft drink came in the Indian market. This soft drink was named as gold spot. Before Coca-Cola entered the country to dominant the scene in 1950s, Parley exports Pvt. Ltd were the first Indian company to introduce a lemon soft drink, this drink was known as Limca and it was introduce in 1970s. However, before this they had introduced cola piping, which was withdrawn in face of tough competition from coca-cola. In the year 1977 coca-cola left Indian market and this brought in an opportunity for various Indian companies to show their caliber, at this time a new soft drink was introduced by parley product and this was named thrums up. This was Coca-cola drink, which had a burnt sugar color. This drink was introduced with a mighty happy days are here again. As if happy days went away with coca-cola .There was another company named pure drinks, which introduced the soft drink named campa-cola along with orange and lemon flavors. Just after this many more companies entered the Indian soft drink market. A soft drink named double-7 had been introduced by a company modern baker. Another company, Mohan meckins also came with a softy drink named marry & puck up. Mcdowell came with thrill, rush and sprit. Previously there was no competition in the Indian soft drink market but with all these companies coming in the Indian market a huge competition was a place with high voltage advertisement. But in the year 1988 Pepsi was given permission to sell its soft drinks in the Indian market by the government of India. Coca-cola also co history of soft drink come back 1993. Soft Drink Market Indian Scenario Indian soft drink industry is witnessing a boom time. Its growth rate is around 20% with such a high growth rate, volume could reach billion crates with 10 years .Three major multinational companies are fighting to grab a major chunk of business from Indian markets. These three major multinational companies are fighting to grab a major chunk of business from Indian markets. These three coca-cola, Pepsi, Cadbury. All of these companies have seen an enormous
2

potential in this country .Consequently, by world standard India per capita consumption of soft drinks is still very low. Therefore these soft drinks grants feel that fire capita consumption can only grow up. Soft drinks industries has already seen and estimated sale of around 240 million crates higher than last years sale of 204 million in 1998. The main reason for such a high growth rate heightened competition between Coca-cola and Pepsi, Cadbury, being a new entrant is for behind. India is actually more vivid in taste and preference than any other country market. Delhi jar instance, accounts for about 20% of total soft consumption in terms of sales. There are about 4, 80,000 soft drinks retailers in India and their numbers are increasing day by day. This actually means that there is just one soft drink retailer on a population of 37,600, which is far below the international standard. Where as Philippines has one soft drink retail counter over a population of 150 people i.e. 4, 00,000 outlets on population of 60 million. Soft drinks shows strong double-digit growth In 2011, soft drinks registered a higher off-trade value growth rate than the review period average. This growth was attributable to strong double-digit performances in sectors such as sports and energy drinks, bottled water and fruit/vegetable juice, which had a good year due to rising mercury levels. Long summers and higher disposable incomes are the main growth drivers for the soft drinks category. Fruit/vegetable juice outshines carbonates in terms of growth Fruit/vegetable juice showed considerably stronger growth than carbonates, being viewed as a healthier alternative. Soft drinks giants Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd and pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd have recognised this trend and are strengthening their product offerings in fruit/vegetable juice. With a focus on healthy diets, consumers in urban areas are slowly shifting from carbonates to fruit/vegetable juice, which also received a major growth boost from on-the-go consumption.

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo compete through lemonade/lime carbonates Lemonade/lime carbonates was among the stronger performers in the carbonates category in 2011. Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd and PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd continue to compete aggressively in this category by increasing the visibility of their brands Sprite, Limca and 7-Up respectively. Catchy taglines were used by manufacturers to generate consumer interest, alongside aggressive campaigns using Bolly wood actors. Modern retail shows steady growth Leading chained retailers are on a major expansion drive, which has led to an increase in soft drinks volume sales. Manufacturers have leveraged this to showcase their new variants in a bid to broaden their consumer base. The modern retailing channel is helping to facilitate the growth of soft drinks. Modern retail offers a unique experience for consumers, where they can touch and feel the product before buying. Tier two and three cities have also seen the robust growth of modern retail outlets. Indians will continue to consume more soft drinks Dynamic products such as sports and energy drinks, bottled water and fruit/vegetable juice will drive strong growth in soft drinks during the forecast period. Soft drinks giants pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd and Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd are targeting the rural segment to enhance their presence. The outlook for soft drinks looks very positive in the forecast period due to strong marketing activities and product innovations by manufacturers.

1.2 COMPANY PROFILE

One of the dynamic industries in our country is the soft drink industry. Soft drinks are a nonalcoholic beverage made with carbonated water. Such drinks are called soft to distinguish them from Alcoholic or hard drinks. Soft drinks are also called pop because the type of bottle caps used before 1890s made a popping noise when removed. People in various areas call soft drinks as soda. Most soft drinks are sweetened and flavored with specially prepared syrup, the flavoring are usually made from various plant part such as root, bark and seeds of cola tree. Most brands of soft drinks were manufactured through franchised bottle with a security formulated beverage syrup or flavor base. Mr. Joseph Priestly, an English Chemist, produced the first artificially carbonated water in the year 1772. At that time mineral water was a popular remedy for certain diseases. Previously artificial mineral water was also called as soda water. In 1806 bottled soft water was produced and sold by Mr. Benjamin Sill man, a Chemistry Professor at Yale College. The number of soft drink bottling company in the United States increased approximately from 65 to 2000, during 1970s increased in the price of soft drinks. Many people switched to less expensive noncarbonated soft drinks, produced using powdered mixes which became an important part of an industry Corporate Overview Pepsico was incorporated in the year 1919 and was re-incorporated in North Carolina in 1986. Pepsi is engaged in beverage and snack food business. Pepsico is a multinational company and it is most successful consumer product company in the world with annual revenue of $ 20 billion and about 1, 43,000 employees. Some of pepsicos brand names are nearly 100 years old. Pepsico has achieved a leadership position in each of the two major packaged good business i.e. Beverage and snack chips. Pepsico the conglomerate king of soft drink has its wide range of soft drinks products available in every book & corner of the world.

The Indian Story

5

Pepsi & Co came to India as food processing unit, Punjab during the year 1986-87 head office Pepsi food unit situated in Delhi, employees are more than 2500 people. Pepsi co today is the leader in the cola and orange segments of beverages in India and enjoys leadership in soft drinks in many parts of the country. It focuses on execution excellence, strengthen, bottle network, reach and penetration in rural and semi-urban areas and dealer focused marketing areas. Pepsico is a global food and beverage leader with net revenues of more than $65 billion and a product portfolio that includes 22 brands that generate more than $1 billion each in annual retail sales. Our main businesses Quaker, Tropicana, Gatorade, Frito-Lay and Pepsi-Cola make hundreds of enjoyable foods and beverages that are loved throughout the world. Pepsicos people are united by our unique commitment to sustainable growth by investing in a healthier future for people and our planet, which Pepsi believe also means a more successful future for pepsico. Pepsi call this commitment Performance with Purpose: pepsicos promise to provide a wide range of foods and beverages for local tastes; to find innovative ways to minimize our impact on the environment by conserving energy and water and reducing packaging volume; to provide a great workplace for our associates; and to respect, support and invest in the local communities where Pepsi operate Mission We have absolute clarity about what we do WE SELL HIGH QUALITY FOOD AND BEVERAGE PRODUCTS. Our success will ensure: dealers will build their business, employees build their futures, and shareholders build their wealth. Vision Pepsico's responsibility is to continually improve all aspects of the world in which we operate social, economic - creating a better tomorrow than today. Products in India 1. 7UP
6

2. Aliva 3. Aquafina 4. Cheetos 5. Dukes 6. Gatorade 7. Kurkure 8. Lays 9. Lehar 10. Mirinda 11. Tropicana 12. Nimbooz 13. Pepsi 14. Quker oats 15. Slice 16. Tropicana 17. Uncle chipps Brand History Tropicana was founded in Bradenton, Florida, USA, in 1947. It is now enjoyed almost everywhere in the world. Carefully nurtured for over 50 years, Tropicana has matured into one of the most respected beverage brands. Tropicana is the #1 brand in packaged 100% Juice in the
7

world in 2011 in off-trade volume. It is today available in 63 countries. Since 1998, Tropicana has been owned by pepsico, Inc. Tropicana Premium Gold was re-launched as Tropicana 100% in 2008.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is only on service quality so the other aspects such as satisfaction, Brand Recognition, Brand Image, Brand loyalty and other branding concepts are not covered. Perception of the retailers towards the Pepsico also studied in this research. This study covered only the area of the Chennai city. So, the information and the conclusion derived from the study are only relevant to this area alone.

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To know the quality of service delivery provided by the PepsiCo. To know the PepsiCo planning towards the distribution channel strategy. To know how strong relationship PepsiCo has with the distributors and retailers. To know the perception of retailers towards the service quality of the PepsiCo. To know the factors that affects the service quality delivery.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Review of literature is the most useful and simple method of formulating the research problem. The researches done by previous researchers are reviewed and their usefulness is evaluated to serve as basis for further research. Thus researcher reviews and builds upon the work of others. The reviews that are collected by the researcher should give an insight into the field under study. The reviews must explain the need and scope of the study under consideration. Sasser et al. (1978) has defined services as commodities that cannot be stored or disappear in use, or as activities that require personal contact. The distinct characteristics of services are intangibility, perishability, heterogeneity of the product, and simultaneity of production and consumption Two economic units are required for a service to be produced the consumer and the producer. While the consumer cannot retain the actual service after it is produced, the effect of the service can be retained. Managing a service operation requires the manager to understand the service concept, service delivery system, and service levels. As the consumer has a key role in the definition and evaluation of all three elements, it is imperative that service managers have a clear understanding of consumer expectations and perceptions. Services may be provided by private or public agencies. These characteristics enhance the importance of certain marketing strategies that are unique to services marketing, such as service customization, managing evidence, making the service tangible, and synchronizing supply and demand patterns. Service quality is more difficult for the consumer to evaluate than goods quality. Perceptions of service quality result from a comparison of consumer expectations with actual service

10

performance. Quality evaluations are not made solely on the outcome of a service; they also involve an evaluation of the process of service delivery. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) emphatically pointed out that the concept of quality prevalent in the goods sector is not extendable to the services sector. Being inherently and essentially intangible, heterogeneous, perishable, and entailing simultaneity and inseparability of production and consumption, services require a distinct framework for quality explication and measurement. As against the goods sector where tangible cues exist to enable consumers to evaluate product quality, quality in the service context is explicated in terms of parameters that largely come under the domain of experience and credence properties and are as such difficult to measure and evaluate (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2001). One major contribution of Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) was to provide a terse definition of service quality. They defined service quality as a global judgment, or attitude, relating to the superiority of the service, and explicated it as involving evaluations of the outcome (i.e., what the customer actually receives from service) and process of service act (i.e., the manner in which service is delivered). In line with the propositions put forward by Gronroos (1982) and Smith and Houston (1982), Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985, 1988) posited and operationalized service quality as a difference between consumer expectations of what they want and their perceptions of what they get. Based on this conceptualization and operationalization, they proposed a service quality measurement scale called SERVQUAL. The SERVQUAL scale constitutes an important landmark in the service quality literature and has been extensively applied in different service settings. Boulding et al. (1993) perceived the dimensions of service quality as a function of a customer's prior expectations of what will and what should transpire during a service encounter, as well as the customer's most recent contact with the service delivery system. These perceptions of quality dimensions form the basis for a person's intended behavior. Their findings suggest that the two different types of expectations have opposing effects on perceptions of service quality and that service quality perceptions positively affect intended behaviors.
11

Zeithaml et al. (1993) explored the gap between expectations and perceptions to better understand expectations as they pertain to customer assessment of service quality and to extend the theoretical work that exists in the customer satisfaction literature. Based on their study, the gap between customer expectations and perceptions as proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985) can be conceptualized to reflect two comparison standards: desired service which reflects what customers want, and adequate service which indicates the standard that customers are willing to accept. The comparison between desired service and perceived service or the level of service customers believe is likely to occur, called perceived service quality (PSQ) is the perceived service superiority gap. The comparison between adequate service and perceived service, called PSQ Gap 5 is the perceived service quality adequacy gap. The smaller the gap between desired service and perceived service, the higher the perceived superiority of the firm. The smaller the gap between adequate service and perceived service, the higher the perceived adequacy of the service. Lowndes and Dawes (2001) have found that Service quality is commonly thought to comprise of five generic dimensions - responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, empathy and reliability. These dimensions form the basis for service measurement tool SERVQUAL. This tool predominantly focused on customer perceptions and expectations of quality and helps the organizations to improve upon their service quality resulting in greater customer retention. Jain and Gupta (2004) have done a comparative analysis of two major service quality measurement scales: SERVQUAL and SERVPERF. An ideal service quality scale is one that is not only psychometrically sound but is also diagnostically robust enough to provide insights to the managers for corrective actions in the event of quality shortfalls. This study assesses the diagnostic power of the two service quality scales. Using data collected through a survey of consumers of fast food restaurants in Delhi, the study finds the SERVPERF scale to be providing a more convergent and discriminant valid explanation of service quality construct. However, the scale is found deficient in its diagnostic power. It is the SERVQUAL scale which outperforms the SERVPERF scale by virtue of possessing higher diagnostic power to pinpoint areas for managerial interventions in the event of service quality shortfalls. SERVPERF scale should be
12

used for assessing overall service quality of a firm because of its psychometric soundness and greater instrument parsimoniousness. One should employ the The SERVPERF scale should also be the preferred research instrument when one is interested in undertaking service quality comparisons across service industries. Arasli et al (2005) has analyzed and compared service quality in the commercial banking sector of a small island economy Cyprus. The author with others investigated the relationship between overall bank customer satisfaction in the Turkish- and Greek-speaking areas of Cyprus and positive word-of-mouth about their banks. There is disparity in the banking sector of a divided Cyprus, where banks in the South have undergone significant restructuring before EU accession and banks in the North are affected by the economic crisis and need to restructure if they want to join the EU. After descriptive and factor analysis, multivariate regression was used to estimate the impact of service quality dimensions on overall customer satisfaction and word of mouth. It was found that the responsiveness dimension failed to load and thus the SERVQUAL scale proved to be of a four-dimensional structure in this study. Research results revealed that the expectations of bank customers in both areas were not met and that the largest gap was found in the empathy dimension. The assurance dimension had the largest influence on customer satisfaction and overall satisfaction of bank customers in both areas of Cyprus had a positive effect on their word-of-mouth. The study helped the banks in both areas of Cyprus to redefine their corporate image to one that is customer-focused and driven by service quality. Prajapati and Kachwala (2006) in their study have found out that the delivery of information i.e. knowledge transmission in the case of Management Education Institutes (MEI) is intangible in nature. Therefore, the inputs in terms of delivery of this knowledge - faculty, equipment and the entire environment and infrastructure are very important for quality. A gap was found between the quality rendered by faculty and service provider, and quality required by students. It is essential to understand the exact quality required by the students to develop a course and curriculum that suit their requirements. Service quality needs to be quantified and thus it can be described in terms of objective and perceptual characteristics:
13

Objective characteristics include things like, lecture time, wait time, etc., and can be easily quantified. Perceptual characteristics on the other hand, depend on the students' perceptions, which include dimensions of service quality based on the SERVQUAL and other service quality instruments. The study encompassed Business Schools in Mumbai as perceived by students are evaluated. The questionnaire is on the basis of a hypothesized model for service quality. Factor analysis of the responses helped to develop a working model for the perceived service quality factors in Management Education Institutes. This helped in identifying the improvements in Service Quality in Management Education Institutes. Cauchick Miguel et al (2007) have highlighted the fact that competitiveness and search for profits have called for more attention towards customers satisfaction and increased organizations interest in service quality. SERVQUAL technique is applied on a multinational company service chain including one hundred shops located throughout the country, to assess quality service dimensions that are delivered through the perspectives of managers and customers. It was found that the certain quality dimensions and characteristics call for managerial attention. Responsiveness and assurance were found to be the most relevant to shop managers and customers, respectively. Quality improvement initiatives were proposed to enhance the service rendered by the car repair shops. The paper concludes that there are differences among the perspectives of shop owners and customers with regard to quality dimensions. Hii Geng Hing (2007) has examined Service Quality (SERVQUAL) variables from the perspective of hotel guests in Sibu. Since Sibu is an emerging market for tourism industry so the information obtained from hotel guests can be utilized to attract more guests. Stanley has used Gap 5 (Gap between expected service and perceived service) and factor analysis to analyze the data obtained in order to determine satisfaction and perception of the guests. Data obtained from 189 respondents revealed a negative Gap 5 perception and a rich expectation and perception factors. Recommendations for managers and future studies are presented.

14

Saravan and Rao (2007) have highlighted that in service firms the practitioners are interested to know the customer perceptions of service quality for identifying shortfalls and improving service delivery. This study has analyzed the discrimination among the three groups (customer oriented, employee oriented and technology oriented) of overall service quality from the customers perspective. The results indicate that both the technological factors and the people-oriented factors appear to contribute more in discriminating the three groups of overall service quality. Further, the service quality indices in the Indian automobile service sector as a whole indicate a satisfactory performance. Swaid and Wigand (2007) in their study have found that to satisfy and retain customers the organization has to offer a superior service quality. The study indicates that the key dimensions of ecommerce service quality are website usability, information quality, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and personalization. Secondly customer satisfaction is influenced mostly with the perception of reliability, while customer loyalty is affected by the perception of assurance and customer retention is predicted by the customer satisfaction index. Rajagopal (2008) has analyzed the impact of market orientation strategies and performance of customer services on customer acquisition, retention and sales of automobiles which reveals overall performance of automobile dealers in Mexico. The study comprehends understanding on customer-dealer relationship in the automobile market segment referring to key factors which establishes service quality encompassing tangibility, responsiveness, trust, accuracy and empathy. It was found that the customers perceive better quality of relationship in a given frame of functions that are performed effectively by the dealer lowering the extent of conflicts thereof. High conformance quality services of dealers and value added customer relationship to offer high customer satisfaction develop life time customer value and strengthen the customer-dealer relationship. According to vavra (1995), quality is consistently delivering products and services that fully meet consumer needs and expectations. Quality is defined by stonebraker and leong (1994) in the
15

following terms: product or service quality requires a total system, which identifies customer requirements, which designs the product/service to those requirements and which establishes a production or service delivery system to produce in conformance with the specifications. According to woodruff (1997), customer value is: a customers perceived preference for and evaluation of that product attributes, attribute performances, and consequences arising from use that facilitate (or block) achieving the customers goals and purposes in use situations. Vandermerwe (1996) makes three assumptions regarding customer value: 1. Value is not what goes into a product, but what a customer gets out of it. 2. A customer gets this value out over a period of time, rather than at a point in time. 3. Value happens in the customer's space rather than in suppliers space, where only costs accumulate. According to naumann and giel , becoming market driven means identifying market growth, market attractiveness, and target markets, while becoming customer driven means using the customer to drive continuous improvement, organizational reinvention, and radical redesign. When a company is customer driven, it means that the customer is the one to decide on the supplier's value added processes. Quality work does not mean quality service (maister, 1997). According to brown (1992), customers prefer organizations that deliver quality service, and suppliers can charge premium for quality services. Early research (grnroos, 1982) suggests that customers access service quality by comparing what they feel a seller should offer and compare it against the seller's actual service performance. Quality control and marketing must take place during service production and consumption. Grnroos (1988) has identified a list of six criteria of good perceived quality professionalism and skills, attitudes and behaviour, accessibility and flexibility, reliability and trustworthiness, recovery, and reputation and credibility. The first is outcome-related, reputation and credibility are image-related, and the rest are process-related. Storbacka and holmlund note that relationship quality can be seen as an antecedent to many other perception concepts, for example, value, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. The service quality model of parasuraman (1985) identified five key gaps that can cause problems in service delivery. These gaps are:

16

1. Research gap between customer expectations and managements perception of that expectations. 2. Planning and design gap between management's perception of what the customer wants and the designed capabilities of the system that management develops to provide the service. 3. Implementation gap between what the service system is designed to provide and what it actually provides. 4. Communication gap between what the service system provides and what the customer is told it provides. 5. Reality gap between customers' service expectations and their perception of that service. A company should always pay attention to the customer perceptions and expectations. If there is a difference between customer expectations and perceptions, there is a gap and in practice, it does not matter whether the gap is based on facts or feelings, but how the customer perceives service matters. In studies of customers' expectations of service quality and their actual experiences, the following five elements are seen as the most important to a buyer (gitomer, 1998, heskett et al. 1990, parasuraman and grewal. Reliability ability to provide what was promised Assurance knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence. Tangibles physical facilities, equipment and the appearance of the personnel Empathy caring and individual attention Responsiveness willingness to help and provide prompt service.

Two critical dimensions are reliability and responsiveness. Generally, reliability is the most important for customer when they assess service. Responsiveness means anticipating problems before they occur, rather than fixing problems quickly. Companies must work at making sure
17

that problems will not occur at all. Once the customer is sure about the quality of the product and responsiveness of the employees, the probability of a customer becoming a loyal customer increases. According to friday and cotts (1995), customers evaluate services based on the purpose of the service, necessity, importance, results, cost, and risk. In order to have appropriate expectations, a customer should have a full picture of the purpose of a job. Depending on the customers perception, the necessity of a service can vary. If a service is necessary to help customers perform their jobs, they have high expectations for the job. If a customer sees a risk associated with dealing with the company, their perception of the added value can be minimal. Ghobadian et al. (1994) posit that most of the service quality definitions fall within the customer led category. Juran (1999) elaborates the definition of customer led quality as features of products which meet customers needs and thereby provide customer satisfaction. As service quality relates to meeting customers needs, we will be looking at perceived service quality in order to understand consumers (Arnauld et al., 2002). Grnroos (1984) and Parasuraman et al., (1985) looks at perceived quality of service as the difference between customers expectation and their perceptions of the actual service received. Other researchers look at perceived service quality as an attitude. Arnauld et al., (2002) defined perceived quality whether in reference to a product or service as the consumers evaluative judgment about an entitys overall excellence or superiority in providing desired benefits (p. 327). Hoffman & Bateson (2001) defines service quality as an attitude formed by a long-term, overall evaluation of a performance. Attitude is defined as a consumers overall, enduring evaluation of a concept or object, such as a person, a brand, or a service. (Arnauld et al, 2002) Service quality as an attitude is consistent with the views of Parasuraman et al., (1988), Cronin & Taylor (1992) & Sureshchandar et al., (2002). Basis of the view is elaborated by the latter: As perceived service quality portrays a general, overall appraisal of service i.e. a global value judgment on the superiority of the overall service, it is viewed as similar to attitude. (p. 364).

18

Feinburg & de Ruyter (1995) pointed the importance of adapting the definition of service quality in different cultures. Ueltschy & Krampf (2001) contended that differences in culture affect measure of quality in a service sector. They encapsulated service quality measures as culturally sensitive and may not perform properly or comparatively in a culturally diverse group domestically or abroad (p.22). Cultural factors are said to have greater influence on peoples evaluation of services than on their evaluations of physical goods due to involvement of customer contact and interaction with employees while a service is delivered (Mattila, 1999). Feinburg & de Ruyter (1995) postulated that the differences require adapting service quality to an international setting (p. 4). Furthermore, the service quality dimensions that are critical most to consumers vary according to culture and industry (Winsted, 1999). It is difficult to measure service quality as compared to goods quality. The difficulty to measure is due to fewer tangible cues available when consumers purchase services (Parasuraman et al., 1985), fewer search properties, but higher in experience and credence properties (Zeithaml, 1981 in Parasuraman 1985), as compared to goods. It also requires higher consumer involvement in the consumption process (Grnroos, 1984). Researchers operationalize the service quality construct either as a gap between expectation of service and perceived performance of service, or just perceived performance alone (Hurley and Estalami, 1998). On the other hand, service quality dimensions are seen as the criteria to assess service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, 1985). Feinburg, and de Ruyter (1995) supported this idea as they postulate that the dimensions are instruments for measuring perceived service quality. They also posit that consumer-perceived service quality is usually seen as a multi-dimensional construct. The earliest research on service quality dimensions was done by Grnroos (1984). He found that the perceived quality of a service is affected by the experience that the consumer went through for a service. Therefore, he encapsulated the perceived quality of a given service as the outcome of an evaluation process; a comparison between the consumer expectations of the service with his perceptions of the service he has received. He also pointed that expectation is influence by traditions, ideology, word-of-mouth communication, and previous experience with the service and the consumers perception of the service itself determines his perceived service.
19

However, he did not discuss the relationship between perception and expectation and how it influences service quality. Grnroos (1984) found that service quality comprises of three global dimensions. The first dimension is the technical quality. This dimension refers to the outcome or what is delivered or what the customer gets from the service. For a retail store, technical quality may include the range of products offered and the availability of parking space. The next dimension is the functional quality which refers to the manner in which the service is delivered or how it is delivered. Customers of a retail store will measure whether the salespeople are friendly or whether products are easily returnable. Finally, the last dimension is the corporate image. The stores image is built by mainly both technical and functional quality and to some extent other factors like the traditional marketing activities. The most popular service quality model in the 1990s (Robinson, 1999) is the model by Parasuraman et al., (1985). Their model supported Grnroos findings on as the models are based on these three underlying themes: 1) Service quality is more difficult for the consumer to evaluate than goods quality; 2) Service quality perceptions result from a comparison of consumer expectations with actual service performance; 3) Quality expectations are not made solely on the outcome of the service; they also involve evaluations of the process of the service (Parasuraman et al.,1985, p. 42) Unlike Grnroos (1984) who used global measure of service quality, Parasuraman et al. (1985) identified items or criteria in measuring service quality. They argued that consumers used similar criteria irrespective of the type of service in measuring service quality. They then group these criteria into 10 key categories which they labeled as service quality determinants (p. 48). The determinants are reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding/knowing the customer, and tangibles. Later in another research (Parasuraman et al., 1988), into only five dimensions - tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Physical Aspects

20

Service is said to be distinguished from goods due to its intangibility (Santos, 2002). The tangibility aspects of a service have a significant effect on perceived service quality (Santos, 2002). The tangibility importance varies according to types of service (Santos, 2002). For a retail store, the tangibility aspect will be critical as the retailers offer a mix of merchandise and service quality (Dabholkar et al., 1996). Specifically, the physical environment plays an important role in the service encounter of the grocery industry (Keillor, et al., 2004). The importance of physical environment in a service setting is due to its ability to influence consumer attitudes(Koernig, 2003), behaviour intention (Keillor, et al., 2004) and behaviour (Bitner, 1992; Koernig, 2003). As customers are involved in the production and consumption process of a service conducted within a physical environment, the physical environment will have a deep impact on customers perception of service experiences (Bitner, 1992). Bitner (1992) also noted that physical environment is often used as cues of a firms competences and quality by consumers before a purchase. Specifically, proper layout in a store will reduce shoppers search time (Sirohi et al., 1998), colour combine with lighting were suggested to affect consumers cognitive representation and affective reaction (Babin et al., 2003, p. 549), and a light and pleasing scent affects shoppers perceptions of a shopping environment in which the latter will have a significant effect on shoppers mood (Chebat & Michon, 2003). Researchers have given several names with different interpretations to the physical elements of service quality measure. Dabholkar et al. (1996) used the term physical aspects to refer to the physical appearance of store and layout convenience. Parasuraman et al. (1988) called it as tangibles adding appearances of staff besides physical facilities and equipment. Baker (1986) and Santos (2002) acknowledged the appearance of staff as part of tangibles. They also added existence of other customers in the service facility onto the interpretation. Bitner (1992) dropped the social environment as listed by Baker (1986), Parasuraman et al. (1988), and Santos (2002) but focus instead on the built environment or what she called as servicescape. She categorized the servicescape to include ambient conditions, spatial layout and functionality, and signs, symbols, and artifacts. Ambient conditions include colour, music, temperature, lighting, and scent. Spatial layout refers to the arrangement, size, shape, and spatial relationships of machinery, equipment, and furnishings.
21

Functionality refers to the capability of machinery, equipment, and furnishings to enhance performance and achieve customer goals. Lastly, signs, symbols, and artifacts act as signals that communicate information about the service place to customers. Statement of the Problem The changing retailers perception because of the availability of variety of products in soft drinks segment along with the growing number of competitors had a major impact in the preference of a particular brand. Dealers and distributors are expecting very high service quality from the soft drink companies to ensure the availability of the products. The players in the soft drink market in the Chennai are Pepsi, coke, Dr Pepper Snapple, Buffalo rock, Lemonade and parle agro. Each and every company has different varieties of product category in the drinks, which gives lot of options for the retailers and dealers in Chennai.

22

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research is the systematic process of collecting and analyzing information in order to increase our understanding of the phenomenon about we are concerned or interested. A descriptive research has been carried out at the first stage by applying a survey method. Data for the study were collected from retailers and distributors in Chennai. The tool used for data collection was a well-structured questioner. Method of data collection: The primary data has been collected from the retailers through survey. Tools used for analysis: Questionnaire has been used to collect the data from the employees. In this study, it is presented through tables. Data analysis made by using simple percentage method and karl pearson co-efficient of correlation and one way ANOVA. Research design Research design selected for this project is descriptive. Data collection method: (a) Primary data collection method: Survey method was used for primary data collection. We used questionnaire as an instrument for survey method.
23

 Structured questionnaire. (b) Secondary data collection method: Reference books and Internet.

Sampling detail 1. Target population: 2. Sample size: 3. Sampling method: the population for this research study consists of the retail outlets. 200 retailers the sample is selected by using convenience-sampling method.

24

4. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS

4.1 Gap analysis Table 1: Gap analysis of reliability dimension Reliability dimensions You recommend Pepsi dealership to your friends and relatives All the bottles and tins are original and quality tested You are always getting the new replaced bottles after service There is always consistency in service provided by Pepsi The personnel shows interest in solving the problems of dealers Average mean Experienced 3.27 3.14 3.18 2.96 3.07 3.12 Expected 3.22 3.28 3.32 3.10 2.97 3.18 Gap 0.05 -0.14 -0.15 -0.15 0.10 -0.06

Inference Table 1 show that the Dealers average expected reliability dimension value is greater than experience reliability dimension value. The average gap value is negative (-0.06). service quality
25

on reliable dimension variable like recommendations to others and employees personal interest in problem solving is positive and all other variables like quality of bottles and tins, getting new replaced bottles and consistent service are negative. Getting new bottles for replacing is the top ranked reliability variable with the mean value of 3.30. Table 2: Gap analysis of responsiveness dimension Responsiveness dimensions For lodging the complaints over telephone the service provider is easily accessible Your complaints or queries are taken seriously and attend timely Application/ registration formalities in Pepsi are convenient to dealer Pepsi offers satisfied follow up and service reminder of periodic maintained service The billing system of the firm is accurate and error free Average mean Experienced Expected 2.94 3.01 3.09 3.25 3.06 3.07 3.49 3.27 3.12 3.03 3.02 3.19 Gap -0.55 -0.27 -0.03 0.21 0.03 -0.12

Inference Table 2 shows that the Dealers average expected responsiveness dimension value is greater than average experience responsiveness dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience responsiveness dimension value is negative (-0.12). Service quality on responsiveness dimension variable like satisfied follow ups and accurate billings gap is positive and remaining variables easy accessible, queries, complaints taken seriously, registration formalities and periodic reminders gaps are negative. Complaints over telephone the service
26

provider is easily accessible is the top ranked responsiveness dimension variable with the mean value of 3.49. Table 3: Gap analysis of responsiveness dimension Assurance dimensions Pepsi offers timely delivery Pepsi offers promising delivery security You are kept well informed prior to service Pepsi is always trust worthy to dealer Your overall experience at Pepsi dealership is satisfactory Average mean Experienced 3.58 3.08 3.27 3.10 2.96 3.20 Expected 3.43 3.17 3.08 2.99 3.33 3.20 Gap 0.15 -0.09 0.19 0.11 -0.37 0.00

Inference Table 3 shows that the Dealers average expected assurance dimension value is equal to average experience assurance dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience assurance dimension value is zero. Service quality on assurance dimension variables like timely delivery, prior to service and trustworthiness gaps is positive and remaining variables like promising delivery security over all experience gaps are negative. offers timely delivery is the top ranked assurance dimension variable with the mean value of 3.43.
27

Table 4: Gap analysis of empathy dimension Empathy dimension Pepsi is operating at convenient working hours Service executive are friendly and polite while handling your complaints Pepsi shows interest to give personnel attention to you and your specific needs Pepsi has less formalities to be completed before providing service While waiting for the service the dealers are given the facilities for all comfort in the waiting lounge Average mean Experienced 3.25 3.19 3.13 3.04 3.32 3.18 Expected 3.29 3.22 3.09 3.17 3.36 3.22 Gap -0.04 -0.02 0.05 -0.13 -0.04 -0.04

Inference Table 4 shows that the Dealers average expected empathy dimension value is greater than average experience empathy dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience empathy dimension value is negative (-0.04). Service quality on empathy dimension variables like convenient working hours, friendly while handling the complaint, interest on giving personnel attention, less formalities and comfortable waiting lounge gaps are negative. Waiting lounge facilities are comfortable is the top ranked empathy dimension variable with the mean value of 3.36. Table 5: Gap analysis of Tangible dimension
28

Tangible Pepsi operating at convenient location The service providers physical facilities infrastructure are visually appealing Technology and machines used are modern The service personnel are skilled enough to diagnose your problem The billing system accurate and up to the mark Average mean

Experienced 2.96 3.16 3.34 3.31 3.25 3.20

Expected 3.39 3.72 3.79 3.44 3.47 3.56

Gap -0.43 -0.56 -0.45 -0.13 -0.22 -0.36

Inference Table 5 shows that the Dealers average expected tangible dimension value is greater than average experience tangible dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience tangible dimension value is negative (-0.36). Service quality on tangible dimension variables like convenient location, physical facilities, technology & machines, personnel are skilled and billing system accurate and up to the mark gaps are negative. Technology and machines used are modern is the top ranked tangible dimension variable with the mean value of 3.79. 4.2 Reliability test Table 6: Reliability Test
29

Variables Expected dimensions experienced dimensions

Cronbach's alpha 0.555 0.558

N of items 25 25

Inference Table 6 shows Cronbach's alpha is 0.555 and 0.558, for expected and experienced service quality dimensions which indicates a high level of internal consistency for scale with these specific samples. 4.3 Correlation analysis Table 7: Correlation between expected and experience service quality variables H0: There is no relationship between expected and experience service quality variables
30

H1: There is a relationship between expected and experience service quality variables
Correlation Experience reliability Experience responsiveness Experience assurance Experience empathy Experience tangibility Expected reliability Expected responsiveness Expected assurance Expected empathy Expected tangibility 1 1 .237** .251** .276** .300** .277** .252** 0.065 .200** .464** 2 .237** 1 .239** .313** .280** .187** .352** 0.022 .193** .267** 3 .251** .239** 1 .169* .139* 0.094 .185** .250** .189** .248** 4 .276** .313** .169* 1 .185** .176* .207** -0.006 .304** .302** 5 .300** .280** .139* .185** 1 .189** .279** .283** .215** .491** 6 .277** .187** 0.094 .176* .189** 1 .180* .234** .344** .187** 7 .252** .352** .185** .207** .279** .180* 1 .189** .235** .232** 8 0.065 0.022 .250** -0.006 .283** .234** .189** 1 .140* .150* 9 .200** .193** .189** .304** .215** .344** .235** .140* 1 0.111 10 .464** .267** .248** .302** .491** .187** .232** .150* 0.111 1

Inference Table 7 shows that all the expected and experience service quality dimensions are positively correlated with one another. Significance of P value is less than 0.05, hence null hypothesis is rejected.

31

4.4 One way ANOVA Table 8: One way ANOVA between overall perception on service quality and experienced reliability dimensions H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced reliability dimension variables at 5%. Sum of Squares You recommend Pepsi dealership to your friends and relatives Between Groups Within Groups Total All the bottles and tins are original and quality tested Between Groups Within Groups Total You are always getting the new replaced bottles after service Between Groups Within Groups Total There is always consistency in service provided by Pepsi Between Groups Within Groups Total The personnel shows interest in solving the problems of dealers Between Groups Within Groups Total **H0 is rejected. 34.417 744.329 778.747 3.957 721.413 725.370 9.422 672.858 682.280 20.612 778.305 798.917 31.272 750.924 782.197 df 4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299 7.818 2.546 3.071 .017** 5.153 2.638 1.953 .102 2.356 2.281 1.033 .391 .989 2.445 .405 .805 Mean Square 8.604 2.523 F 3.410 Sig. .010**

Inference
32

Significance of F value is less than 0.05 for expected consistent service and recommending to others, hence these variables do vary with overall perception about service quality. Null hypothesis rejected for these variables.

Table 9: One way ANOVA between overall perception on service quality and experienced responsiveness dimensions
33

H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced responsiveness dimension variables at 5%. Sum of For lodging the complaints over telephone the service provider is easily accessible Your complaints or queries are taken seriously and attend timely Application/ registration formalities in Pepsi are convenient to dealer Pepsi offers satisfied follow up and service reminder of periodic maintained service The billing system of the firm is accurate and error free Inference Significance of F value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced responsiveness dimension variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality does not vary with responsiveness dimension variables. Table 10: One way ANOVA between overall perception on service quality and experienced assurance dimensions Between Groups Within Groups Total df Mean Square .504 2.623 F .192 Sig. .942

Squares 2.018 4 773.769 295 775.787 299

Between Groups Within Groups Total

11.780 4 779.457 295 791.237 299

2.945 2.642

1.115

.350

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

3.702 4 708.335 295 712.037 299 8.358 4 741.892 295 750.250 299

.925 2.401

.385

.819

2.089 2.515

.831

.506

Between Groups Within Groups Total

12.676 4 699.360 295 712.037 299

3.169 2.371

1.337

.256

34

H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced assurance dimension variables at 5%. Sum of
Pepsi offers timely delivery Pepsi offers promising delivery security You are kept well informed prior to service Pepsi is always trust worthy to dealer Your overall experience at Pepsi dealership is satisfactory

df 4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299

Mean Square 3.157 2.320 3.048 2.503 4.243 2.470 1.448 2.492 1.560 2.565

F 1.361 1.218

Sig. .248 .303

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

Squares 12.627 684.253 696.880 12.192 738.474 750.667 16.971 728.776 745.747 5.792 735.154 740.947 6.240 756.757 762.997

1.717

.146

.581

.677

.608

.657

Inference Significance of F value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced assurance dimension variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality does not vary with assurance dimension variables. Table 11: One way ANOVA between overall perception on service quality and experienced empathy dimensions H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced empathy dimension variables at 5%. Sum of
35

df

Mean

Sig.

Convenient working hours Service executive are friendly while handling complaints Shows interest to give personnel attentions Less formalities to be completed before

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

Squares 1.192 775.474 776.667 7.735 806.931 814.667 13.134 727.436 740.570 23.463 754.573 778.037 8.205 709.565 717.770

4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299

Square .298 2.629 1.934 2.735 3.283 2.466 5.866 2.558 2.051 2.405

.113 .707

.978 .588

1.332 2.293

.258 .060

providing service Comfort in the waiting Between Groups Within Groups lounge Total

.853

.493

Inference Significance of F value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced empathy dimension variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality does not vary with empathy dimension variables. Table 12: One way ANOVA between overall perception on service quality and experienced tangible dimensions H0: Overall service quality perception does not vary with experienced tangible dimension variables at 5%. Sum of Operating at convenient location Physical facilities infrastructure are Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Squares .581 476.086 476.667 2.851 430.785 433.637
36

df 4 295 299 4 295 299

Mean Square .145 1.614 .713 1.460

F .090 .488

Sig. .986 .744

visually appealing Technology and machines used are modern Personnel are skilled enough to diagnose your problem The billing system accurate and up to the mark

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

7.324 539.913 547.237 6.709 489.621 496.330 1.083 587.167 588.250

4 295 299 4 295 299 4 295 299

1.831 1.830 1.677 1.660 .271 1.990

1.000

.408

1.011

.402

.136

.969

Inference Significance of F value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced tangible dimension variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality does not vary with tangible dimension variables.

5. FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 FINDINGS

Dealers average expected reliability dimension value is greater than experience reliability dimension value. The average gap value is negative (-0.06). service quality on reliable dimension variable like recommendations to others and employees personal interest in problem solving is positive and all other variables like quality of bottles and tins, getting new replaced bottles and consistent service are negative. Getting new bottles for replacing is the top ranked reliability variable with the mean value of 3.30. Dealers average expected responsiveness dimension value is greater than average experience responsiveness dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience responsiveness dimension value is negative (-0.12).
37

Service quality on

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

positive and remaining variables easy accessible, queries, complaints taken seriously, registration formalities and periodic reminders gaps are negative. dimension variable with the mean value of 3.49. Dealers average expected assurance dimension value is equal to average experience assurance dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience assurance dimension value is zero. Service quality on assurance dimension variables like timely delivery, prior to service and trustworthiness gaps is positive and remaining variables like promising delivery security over all experience gaps are negative. offers timely delivery is the top ranked assurance dimension variable with the mean value of 3.43. Dealers average expected empathy dimension value is greater than average experience empathy dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience empathy dimension value is negative (-0.04). Service quality on empathy dimension variables like convenient working hours, friendly while handling the complaint, interest on giving personnel attention, less formalities and comfortable waiting lounge gaps are negative. Waiting lounge facilities are comfortable is the top ranked empathy dimension variable with the mean value of 3.36. Dealers average expected tangible dimension value is greater than average experience tangible dimension value. The average gap between expected and experience tangible dimension value is negative (-0.36). Service quality on tangible dimension variables like convenient location, physical facilities, technology & machines, personnel are skilled and billing system accurate and up to the mark gaps are negative. Technology and machines used are modern is the top ranked tangible dimension variable with the mean value of 3.79.

Complaints over

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

Cronbach's alpha is 0.555 and 0.558, for expected and experienced service quality dimensions which indicates a high level of internal consistency for scale with these specific samples.

38

All the expected and experience service quality dimensions are positively correlated with one another. Significance of P value is less than 0.05, hence null hypothesis is rejected.

Significance of F value is less than 0.05 for expected consistent service and recommending to others, hence these variables do vary with overall perception about service quality. Null hypothesis rejected for these variables.

Significance of F value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced responsiveness dimension variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality does not vary with responsiveness dimension variables.

Significance of F value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced assurance dimension variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality does not vary with assurance dimension variables.

Significance of F value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced empathy dimension variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality does not vary with empathy dimension variables.

Significance of F value is greater than 0.05 for all the experienced tangible dimension variables. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Overall perception about service quality does not vary with tangible dimension variables.

5.2. SUGGESTIONS
To set up a complaint handling cell for reducing Dealer grievances. Better to provide Dealer pick and drop facility. This enhances Dealer and company relations. Provide spot and home services to Dealers.
39

Employees are capable of directly contributing to both Dealer disappointment and delight .Therefore , it is essential that the dealer have the research and analysis method that links staff performance engagement directly to the Dealer behaviour, so that they can hire , train, recognise and reward employees for how they contribute to Dealer value.

To conduct Dealer get together program. It helps for easily understanding Dealers expectations and perceptions towards service quality in company .It also contributing for the improvement of services given by the company.

Service charges are not reasonable. So company should give discounts to Dealers. Affordable financing attract and retain Dealers.

Identify what leverages top-end Dealer commitment and advocacy behaviour, and then build Dealer experience around it.

All the issue of the Dealers regarding sales and service should be dealt with immediately and overall satisfaction level towards the various services provided by the dealer should be further raised.

Communicate often with Dealers regarding to build loyalty and to gain intangible, emotional relationship benefits.

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

The company should identify ways and means to reduce the service time there by offering an assured shortest possible time.

5.3. CONCLUSION

40

In this highly competitive world organizations have no choice but to provide better services to Dealer to stay in the market. For an organisation providing services it will be very difficult to give out the offers to attract Dealers, so to stay in the market providing better services is only the option. To conclude, this project Pepsico has created a good image in Chennai city. Dealers of Pepsico have given positive response towards overall service quality. Service quality plays a vital in determining marketing image of every company. Once the attributes of services from the Dealers perspective are more clearly known and understood, its service providers will be in a better position to anticipate consumer requirements rather than to react to consumer dissatisfaction. Expectation of the Dealers changes every time; its hard to understand the expectations of the Dealers and the retail showrooms must to provide quality service to the Dealers. This study to recognize the reality that Dealer service quality is very important in the success.

APPENDIX
Questionnaires
41

Particulars Reliability 5

Expectation 4 3 2 1 5

Experience 4 3 2 1

1.You recommend Pepsi dealership to your friends and relatives 2.All the bottles and tins are original and quality tested 3.You are always getting the new replaced bottles after service 4.There is always consistency in service provided by Pepsi 5.The personnel shows interest in solving the problems of dealers Responsiveness 6.For lodging the complaints over telephone the service provider is easily accessible 7.Your complaints or queries are taken seriously and attend timely 8.Application/ registration formalities in Pepsi are convenient to dealer 9.Pepsi offers satisfied follow up and service reminder of periodic maintained service 10.The billing system of the firm is accurate and error free Assurance 11.Pepsi offers timely delivery 12.Pepsi offers promising delivery security 13.You are kept well informed prior to service 14.Pepsi is always trust worthy to dealer 15.Your overall experience at Pepsi dealership is satisfactory Empathy 16.Pepsi is operating at convenient working hours 17.Service executive are friendly and polite while handling your complaints 18.Pepsi shows interest to give personnel attention to you and your specific needs
42

19.Pepsi has less formalities to be completed before providing service 20.While waiting for the service the dealers are given the facilities for all comfort in the waiting lounge Tangible 21.Pepsi operating at convenient location 22.The service providers physical facilities infrastructure are visually appealing 23.Technology and machines used are modern 24.The service personnel are skilled enough to diagnose your problem 25.The billing system accurate and up to the mark Service quality 26.Pepsi successfully match dealer expectation through all forms of communication 27.Pepsi educate dealers adequately 28.Pepsi always keep service promise which they communicate through advertisement 29.Pepsi able to match between advertisement and its operation 30.After sale service of the Pepsi is satisfactory 31.Same complaints are reoccurring after the service 32.Comfortable with the performance of the products after the service 3.All complaints are fully solved

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berndt, A. (2009). Investigating service quality dimensions in South African motor vehicle servicing, 1(1), 1-9.

43

Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, a., & Zeithaml, V. a. (1994). Improving service quality in America: Lessons learned. Academy of Management Perspectives, 8(2), 32-45. doi:10.5465/AME.1994.9503101072

Brady, M. K., Cronin, J. J., & Brand, R. R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service quality: a replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 17-31. Cole, S. T., & Ph, D. (1998). Service Quality Dimensions Affecting Nature Tourists Intentions to Revisit. Tourism. Dixit, K. S., Modak, J. P., & Singh, M. P. (2011). ES. Engineering Sciences, (10), 285299. Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), 53-71. doi:10.1108/09564239510101536

Kang, G.-D., & James, J. (2004). Service quality dimensions: an examination of Grnrooss service quality model. Managing Service Quality, 14(4), 266-277. doi:10.1108/09604520410546806

Katarne, R., & Sharma, S. (2010). Measurement of Service Quality of an Automobile Service Centre. Operations Management, (1). Kendrick, M. (1997). Kendrick , Michael , The Leadership Challenge of Service Quality ,. Challenge, 11(1). Litman, T. (2011). Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements. Spring, 11(2), 43-64. Martin, W. B., & Ph, D. (n.d.). Quality Customer Service. Quality. Prof, A., & Nimsomboon, N. (2003). Assessment of Library Service Quality At Thammasat University Library System. Library. Rust, R. T., Zahorik, A. J., & Keiningham, T. L. (1995). Return on Quality ( ROQ ): Making Service Quality Financially. Journal of Marketing, 59(April), 58-70. Seth, N., Deshmukh, S. G., & Vrat, P. (2005). Service quality models: a review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management (Vol. 22, pp. 913-949). Shahin, A. (n.d.). SERVQUAL and Model of Service Quality Gaps : A Framework for Determining and Prioritizing Critical Factors in Delivering Quality Services. Young.
44

Tan, B.-in, Wong, C.-har, Lam, C.-hoong, Ooi, K.-boon, & Ng, F. C.-yew. (2010). assessing the link between service quality dimensions and knowledge sharing : Student perspective. Journal of Business, 4(June), 1014-1022.

Verma, H. V. (2004). RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SERVICE QUALITY. International Management, 4(1). Wang, I.-ming, & Jung, C. The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction: the example of CJCU library I-Ming Wang Chich-Jen Shieh , 27(1), 193209.

45