THE MARKETING STRATEGY TOWARD INTERNATIONAL SERVICED SATISFACTION STANDARD FOR TRAVELERS IN GAS STATION ROADSIDE REST AREA ANUCHA KUNTRARADUSADEE

 EDUCATION BACKGROUND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER RAJCHAMAKALA UNIVERSITY MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION KHONKAEN UNIVERSITY PRESENT DBA MARKETING (CANDIDATE) SIAM UNIVERSITY  OCCUPATION PETRONAS RETAIL (THAILAND) CO.,LTD. PROJECT MANAGER

 Garder and Bosonetto. (2002). Quantify Roadside Rest Area Usage in NETC. University of Maine, Orono, ME.  Blomquite and Carson. (1999). An Investigation of the Needs and Expectations of Rest Area Users in Montana. National Research Council, Washington D.C.  Horn and Tentacostle. (1999). Rest Area Forum: Summary of Proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia.  FHWA.(1996). Commercial Driver Rest Area & Parking Requirements: Making Space for Safety Final Report. Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.  AASHTO.(1999). A Guide for Development of Rest Area on Major Arterials and Freeways-Draft. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.  Kimberlee Langoft.(1996). Investigate the Public’s Perception of Highway Rest Area. Oregon Survey Research Laboratory University of Oregon.

FY 2006 REST AREA CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RESULTS 32 REST AREAS STATEWIDE GOOD TO GREAT APRIL-JULY 2006

CONCEPTUAL FRAMWORK AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS Personal Factor 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Status 4. Occupation 5. Average income per month 6. Education 7. Objective of travel 8. Travel colleague 9. Nationality of gas station 10. Type of vehicle 11. Status of travel Purchase Decision under Utilities Result 1. Products and services 2. Acceptance 3. Sufficiency 4. Accessibility 5. Appropriateness Satisfaction 1. Product of service 2. Price of service 3. Place of service 4. Promotion of service 5. People of service 6. Process of service 7. Physical evidence of service Marketing Strategy 1. Product 2. Price 3. Place 4. Promotion 5. People 6. Process 7. Physical evidence H 5 H 4 H 6 H 3 H 2 H 1 Stimulus The physical Environment Oganism Emotional Response Behavioral Response Approach-Avoidance Responses Merhrabian and Russell 1974

METHOD AND PROCEDURES Populati on Travelers 3,065 Stations Department of Energy Business, June Located on Upcountry 40 0 Taro Yamane (991 x 400)/3,065 = 130 (379 x 400)/3,065 = 50 (383 x 400)/3,065 = 50 (280 x 400)/3,065 = 35 (94 x 400)/3,065 = 15 (43 x 400)/3,065 = 5 (895 x 400)/3,065 = 115

FUEL COVENIENCE STORE TOILET PAHOLYOT HIN 1 ASI A 2 RAMA 2 3 PETCHKAS EM 4 MITAPH AP 5 SUKHUM VIT 6 SAMPLING PROCEDURES = June – October 2008

400 Sets = 25 Northern = 81 Sets = 10 =8=8 = 25 =2=2 =1=1 = 10 Central = 37 Sets =5=5 =5=5 =3=3 = 10 =3=3 =1=1 = 20 Western = 54 Sets = 10 =5=5 =5=5 =3=3 =1=1 = 30 North Eastern = 106 Sets = 10 =8=8 = 45 =2=2 =1=1 = 20 Eastern = 61 Sets =5=5 = 10 =5=5 = 15 =5=5 =1=1 = 25 Southern = 61 ชุด = 10 =6=6 =0=0 =0=0 QUESTIONNAIRE COLLECTED

MEASURES Data Analysis 1. Stability 2. Consistency SPSS 14 Reliability 1. Good-of-Fit Indices for the proposed Structural Equation Model 2. Testifying Hypothesis AMOS 6Model Questionnaire 1. Marketing Strategy 52 Clauses : Likert 5 Scale 2. Purchase Decision under Utilities Result 42 Clauses : Likert 5 Scale 3. Satisfaction after Service’s Delivery 51 Clauses : Likert 5 Scale 4. Personal Factor 11 Clauses : Checklist IOC >0.50 α = Clauses

Conclusion Measurement Model Findings

Occupation Employee 62% Travel Status Driver 66% Travel Objective Tourism 48.5% Marriage 53% Vehicle Personal car 58.5% Education B. Degree 68% Age Year 68% Nationality Unbiased 96% Monthly Income > 30,000 บาท 52% Traveler’s Profile 1 Male 56.8% Travel Colleague Female 59% POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

Model fit statistics collectively demonstrate that the research model fits that data well MEASUREMENT MODEL IndexCriterionStatistics Value Chi-Square CMIN/DF GFI AGFI NFI IFI CFI RMR RMSEA P ≥ 0.05 ≥ 0.90 < 0.05 Closed to Conceptual Model

If factor loading > 0.30 mean model is validity MEASUREMENT MODEL Conceptual Model Product of service Price of service Place of service Promotion of service People of service Process of service Physical evidence of service Products and services Acceptance Sufficiency Accessibility Appropriateness Product Price Place Promotion People Process Physical evidence Satisfaction Purchase Decision Marketing Strategy Factor Loading Item Confirmatory Factor Analysis : CFA

STRUCTURAL MODEL Structural Equation Modeling : SEM Full Structure Equation Modeling Chi-square = , df = 263, p-value = 0.165, CMIN/DF = 1.085, GFI = 0.955, NFI = 0.927, CFI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.015, RMR = 0.012, *p <0.05 = gender age * status * occu income edu * object colleag – 0.232* nation vehicle travel; R 2 = (16.9%) Marketing strategy = gender –0.037 age status * occu – income edu – object colleag – nation vehicle travel * strategy; R 2 = (14.4%) Purchase decision under utilities result Satisfaction after services’ delivery = gender age –0.015 status * occu –0.012 income edu object group admin – 0.012vehicle travel * strategy * decision; R 2 = (45.5%)

Purchase Decision under Utilities Result 1. Products and services 2. Acceptance 3. Sufficiency 4. Accessibility 5. Appropriateness Satisfaction after Services’ Delivery 1. Product of service 2. Price of service 3. Place of service 4. Promotion of service 5. People of service 6. Process of service 7. Physical evidence of service Marketing Strategy 1. Product 2. Price 3. Place 4. Promotion 5. People 6. Process 7. Physical evidence Path Coefficient = 0.158* Personal Factor 1. Status 2. Objective of travel 3. Nationality of gas station 4. Occupation Path Coefficient = 0.083* Path Coefficient = 0.126* Path Coefficient = 0.462* Path Coefficient = 0.277* Path Coefficient = 0.142* Path Coefficient = *, 0.140*, and respectively Parsimonious Model CONCLUSION Marketing strategy quite significant related to international serviced satisfaction standard in gas station roadside rest area. R % (0.455x100) R 2 >0.40 Saris & Strenkhorst, 1984

BIBLIOGRAPHY AASHTO. (1999). A Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways-Draft. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C. Blomquist, D. and Carson, J.L. (1999). An Investigation of the Needs and Expectations of Rest Area Users in Montana. Transportation Research Board 79th Annual Meeting Preprint CD-ROM, National Research Council, Washington D.C. FHWA. (1996). Commercial Driver Rest Area & Parking Requirements: Making Space for Safety Final Report. Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C. Garder, Per. (1999). Quantifying Roadside Rest Area Usage. Proposal to NETC. University of Maine, Orono, ME. Haworth, N.L. (1998). Fatigue and fatigue research: The Australian experience paper presented to 7th Biennial Australasian Traffic Education Conference, Speed, Alcohol, Fatigue, Effects, Brisbane. Michael, A. Perfater. (1988). Operation and Motorist Usage of Interstate Rest Areas and Welcome Centers in Virginia, Transportation Research Record, Virginia Transportation Research Council. Taylor, William, C. and Sung, Nakmoon. (1998). A Study of Highway Rest Areas and Fatigue Related Truck Crashes. Transportation Research Board 79th Annual Meeting Preprint CD-ROM, National Research Council, Washington D.C. Tyrrell, Timothy J. (1999). Rhode Island Travel and Tourism Research Report v.16,#1. Office of Travel, Tourism and Recreation, Department of Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island.

THANK YOU