Field study work of customer satisfaction towards
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Field study work of customer satisfaction towards

on

  • 773 views

hi friends dis is imamudheen from madurai.. this project may usefull for your reference at final year... thank u...

hi friends dis is imamudheen from madurai.. this project may usefull for your reference at final year... thank u...

Statistics

Views

Total Views
773
Views on SlideShare
773
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
22
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

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

11 of 1

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • hi brother i'm j pandi lakshmi. your report is very nice to read. i want to download your report in ms-word format. may you post your report in another website? pls reply me. i'm waiting for your reply. i'm also in madurai.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Field study work of customer satisfaction towards Field study work of customer satisfaction towards Document Transcript

    • 1 | P a g e FIELD STUDY WORK OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS “SOFT DRINKS”WITH REFERENCE AT KARAIKUDI TOWN Submitted to Alagappa University in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Degree of BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Submitted by Y.XXXXXXXX (REG.NO 10153142) Under the guidance of MR.XXXXXXXXX M.Com., M.Sc., M.Phil., PGDCA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ALAGAPPA GOVT ATRS COLLEGE KARAIKUDI-630 002 2012 – 2013
    • 2 | P a g e ALAGPPA GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE KARAIKUDI-630002 DEPARTMENT OF BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Date: BONOFIDE CERTIFICATE This is to certify that this field study report on FIELD STUDY WORK OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS “SOFT DRINKS”WITH REFERENCE IN KARAIKUDI TOWN Is done by Y.XXXXXXX (REG.NO 10153142) during the course of this study in the sixth semester. This field study represents independent work on the part of the candidate. Dr.KKKKKKKK Mrs. LLLLLLLLL (Head of the department) (Faculty guide)
    • 3 | P a g e DECLARATION I hereby that the field study report titled FIELD STUDY WORK OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS “SOFT DRINKS” IN KARAIKUDI TOWN for the degree in BBA is my original work Signature of the Candidate (Y.XXXXXXXXXXXXX)
    • 4 | P a g e Acknowledgment I regard my deepest sense of gratitude to (late) DR.ALAGAPPA CHETTIYAR for his valuable contribution for this education. First I express my thanks to our principal MR.Prof.X.YYYYYYYYYY, M.Com., M.Phil., to give me an opportunity to study B.B.A Degree Course. I also express my thanks to MR.DR.YYYYYYY M.B.A., MPhil., Ph.D. Head of the Department of Business Administration for his constant encouragement and support. I personally thank to MRSYYYYYYYY M.Com., M.Sc., M.Phil., PGDCA who helped me in every possible way in bringing out this successfully. It is my duty to thank department staffs, friend and my parents who motivated, guided and supported me to complete this report more successfully. By sincerely, (Y.XXXXXXXX)
    • 5 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS S.NO TITLE PAGE NO I INTRODUCTION 7 – 19 II COMPANY PROFILE 21 – 24 III OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 26 IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 28 V DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION 30 - 71 VI FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 73 – 74 VII LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 76 VIII SUGGESTIONS 78 IX CONCLUSION 80 X APPENDIX 82 – 83
    • 6 | P a g e INTRODUCTION
    • 7 | P a g e CHAPTER – I INTRODUCTION THE HISTORY OF SOFT DRINKS The first marketed soft drinks in the Western world appeared in the 17th century. They were made of water and lemon juice sweetened with honey. In 1676, the Companies des Lemonades of Paris was granted a monopoly for the sale of lemonade soft drinks. Vendors carried tanks of lemonade on their backs and dispensed cups of the soft drink to thirsty Parisians. Carbonated drinks In the late 18th century, scientists made important progress in replicating naturally carbonated mineral waters. In 1767, Englishman Joseph Priestley first discovered a method of infusing water with carbon dioxide to make carbonated water when he suspended a bowl of distilled water above a beer vat at a local brewery in Leeds, England. His invention of carbonated water (also known as soda water) is the major and defining component of most soft drinks. Priestley found that water treated in this manner had a pleasant taste, and he offered it to friends as a refreshing drink. In 1772,
    • 8 | P a g e Priestley published a paper entitled Impregnating Water with Fixed Air in which he describes dripping oil of vitriol onto chalk to produce carbon dioxide gas, and encouraging the gas to dissolve into an agitated bowl of water. Another Englishman, John Mervin Nooth, improved Priestley's design and sold his apparatus for commercial use in pharmacies. Swedish chemist TorbernBergmaninvented a generating apparatus that made carbonated water from chalk by the use of sulfuric acid. Bergman's apparatus allowed imitation mineral water to be produced in large amounts. Swedish chemist Jöns Jacob Berzelius started to add flavors (spices, juices, and wine) to carbonated water in the late eighteenth century. Phosphate soda A variant of soda in the United States called "phosphate soda" appeared in the late 1870s. It became one of the most popular soda fountain drinks from 1900 through the 1930s, with the lemon or orange phosphate being the most basic. The drink consists of 1 US fl oz (30 ml) fruit syrup, 1/2 teaspoon of phosphoric acid, and enough carbonated water and ice to fill a glass. This drink was commonly served in pharmacies. Soda fountain pioneers Artificial mineral waters, usually called "soda water", and the soda fountain made the biggest splash in the United States. Beginning in 1806, Yale University chemistry professor Benjamin Silliman sold soda waters in New Haven, Connecticut. He used a Nooth apparatus to produce his waters. Businessmen in Philadelphia and New York City also began selling soda water in the early 19th century. In the 1830s, John Matthews of New York City and John Lippincott of Philadelphia began manufacturing soda fountains. Both men were successful and built large factories for fabricating fountains.
    • 9 | P a g e Soda fountains vs. bottled sodas The drinking of either natural or artificial mineral water was considered a healthy practice. The American pharmacists selling mineral waters began to add herbs and chemicals to unflavored mineral water. They used birch bark (see birch beer), dandelion, sarsaparilla, fruit extracts, and other substances. Flavorings were also added to improve the taste. Pharmacies with soda fountains became a popular par t of American culture. Many Americans frequented the soda fountain on a daily basis. Due to problems in the U.S. glass industry, bottled drinks were a small portion of the market in the 19th century. (However, they were known in England. In The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, published in 1848, the caddish Huntingdon, recovering from months of debauchery, wakes at noon and gulps a bottle of soda-water.) In America, most soft drinks were dispensed and consumed at a soda fountain, usually in a drugstore or ice cream parlor. In the early 20th century, sales of bottled soda increased exponentially. In the second half of the 20th century, canned soft drinks became an important share of the market. Soft drink bottling industry Over 1,500 U.S. patents were filed for either a cork, cap, or lid for the carbonated drink bottle tops during the early days of the bottling industry. Carbonated drink bottles are under great pressure from the gas. Inventors were trying to find the best way to prevent the carbon dioxide or bubbles from escaping. In 1892, the "Crown Cork Bottle Seal" was patented by William Painter, a Baltimore, Maryland machine shop operator. It was the first very successful method of keeping the bubbles in the bottle.
    • 10 | P a g e Automatic production of glass bottles In 1899, the first patent was issued for a glass-blowing machine for the automatic production of glass bottles. Earlier glass bottles had all been hand- blown. Four years later, the new bottle-blowing machine was in operation. It was first operated by the inventor, Michael Owens, an employee of Libby Glass Company. Within a few years, glass bottle production increased from 1,400 bottles a day to about 58,000 bottles a day. Home-Paks and vending machines During the 1920s, "Home-Paks" were invented. "Home-Paks" are the familiar six-pack cartons made from cardboard. Vending machines also began to appear in the 1920s. Since then, soft drink vending machines have become increasingly popular. Both hot and cold drinks are sold in these self-service machines throughout the world. Health effects: The consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks is associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes, dental caries, and low nutrient levels. Experimental studies tend to support a causal role for sugar-sweetened soft drinks in these ailments,[13][14] though this is challenged by other researchers. "Sugar-sweetened" includes drinks that use high-fructose corn syrup, as well as those using sucrose. Many soft drinks contain ingredients that are themselves sources of concern: caffeine is linked to anxiety and sleep disruption when consumed in excess, and some critics question the health effects of added sugars and artificial sweeteners. Sodium benzoate has been investigated by researchers at University of Sheffield as a possible cause of DNA damage and hyperactivity.
    • 11 | P a g e In 1998, the Center for Science in the Public Interest published a report titled Liquid Candy: How Soft Drinks are Harming Americans' Health. The report examined statistics relating to the increase in soft drink consumption and claimed that consumption is "likely contributing to health problems." It also criticized marketing efforts by soft drink companies. Obesity and weight-related diseases From 1977 to 2002, Americans doubled their consumption of sweetened beverages trend that was paralleled by doubling the prevalence of obesity. The consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight and obesity, and changes in consumption can help predict changes in weight. One study followed 548 schoolchildren over 19 months and found that changes in soft drink consumption were associated with changes in body mass index (BMI). Each soft drink that a child added to his or her daily consumption was accompanied by an increase in BMI of 0.24 kg/m2 . Similarly, an 8-year study of 50,000 female nurses compared women who went from drinking almost no soft drinks to drinking more than one a day to women who went from drinking more than one soft drink a day to drinking almost no soft drinks. The women who increased their consumption of soft drinks gained 8.0 kg over the course of the study while the women who decreased their consumption gained only 2.8 kg. In each of these studies, the absolute number of soft drinks consumed per day was also positively associated with weight gain. It remains possible that the correlation is due to a third factor: people who lead unhealthy lifestyles might consume more soft drinks. If so, then the association between soft drink consumption and weight gain could reflect the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle rather than the consequences of consuming soft drinks. Experimental evidence is needed to definitively establish the causal role of soft drink consumption.
    • 12 | P a g e Many of these experiments examined the influence of sugar-sweetened soft drinks on weight gain in children and adolescents. In one experiment, adolescents replaced sugar-sweetened soft drinks in their diet with artificially sweetened soft drinks that were sent to their homes over 25 weeks. Compared with children in a control group, children who received the artificially sweetened drinks saw a smaller increase in their BMI (by −.14 kg/m2 ), but this effect was only statistically significant among the heaviest children (who saw a benefit of −.75 kg/m2 ). In another study, an educational program encouraged schoolchildren to consume fewer soft drinks. During the school year, the prevalence of obesity decreased among children in the program by 0.2%, compared to a 7.5% increase among children in the control group. Sugar-sweetened drinks have also been speculated to cause weight gain in adults. In one study, overweight individuals consumed a daily supplement of sucrose-sweetened or artificially sweetened drinks or foods for a 10 week period. Most of the supplement was in the form of soft drinks. Individuals in the sucrose group gained 1.6 kg, and individuals in the artificial-sweetener group lost 1.0 kg. A two week study had participants supplement their diet with sugar- sweetened soft drinks, artificially sweetened soft drinks, or neither. Although the participants gained the most weight when consuming the sugar-sweetened drinks, some of the differences were unreliable: the differences between men who consumed sugar-sweetened drinks or no drinks was not statistically significant. Other research suggests that soft drinks could play a special role in weight gain. One four-week experiment compared a 450 calorie/day supplement of sugar-sweetened soft drinks to a 450 calorie/day supplement of jelly beans. The jelly bean supplement did not lead to weight gain, but the soft drink supplement did. The likely reason for the difference in weight gain is that people who consumed the jelly beans lowered their caloric intake at subsequent
    • 13 | P a g e meals, while people who consumed soft drinks did not. Thus, the low levels of satiety provided by sugar-sweetened soft drinks may explain their association with obesity. That is, people who consume calories in sugar-sweetened beverages may fail to adequately reduce their intake of calories from other sources. Indeed, people consume more total calories in meals and on days when they are given sugar-sweetened beverages than when they are given artificially sweetened beverages or water. A study by Purdue University reported that no-calorie sweeteners were linked to an increase in body weight. The experiment compared rats who were fed saccharin-sweetened yogurt and glucose-sweetened yogurt. The saccharin group eventually consumed more calories, gained more weight and more body fat, and did not compensate later by cutting back. The consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks can also be associated with many weight-related diseases, including diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated blood pressure. Bone loss: In a meta-analysis of 88 studies, drinking soda correlates with a decrease in milk consumption along with the vitamin D, vitamin B6,vitamin B12, calcium, protein and other micronutrients.[33] Phosphorus, a micronutrient, can be found in cola-type beverages, but there may be a risk in consuming too much. Phosphorus and calcium are used in the body to create calcium- phosphate, which is the main component of bone. However, the combination of too much phosphorus with too little calcium in the body can lead to a degeneration of bone mass.
    • 14 | P a g e Dental decay Most soft drinks contain high concentration of simple carbohydrates: glucose, fructose, sucrose and other simple sugars. Oral bacteria ferment carbohydrates and produce acid, which dissolves tooth enamel during the dental decay process; thus, sweetened drinks are likely to increase risk of dental caries. The risk is greater if the frequency of consumption is high. This has led to dentists referring to soft drinks as "liquid chainsaws". A large number of soft drinks are acidic, and some may have a pH of 3.0 or even lower. Drinking acidic drinks over a long period of time and continuous sipping can therefore erode the tooth enamel. However, under normal conditions, scientific evidence indicates Coca-Cola's acidity causes no immediate harm. Using a drinking straw is often advised by dentists as the drink does not come into as much contact with the teeth. It has also been suggested that brushing teeth right after drinking soft drinks should be avoided as this can result in additional erosion to the teeth due to the presence of acid. Hypokalemia There have been a handful of published reports describing individuals with severe hypokalemia (low potassium levels) related to chronic extreme consumption (4-10 L/day) of colas. Soft drinks and bone density Research suggests a statistically significant inverse relationship between consumption of carbonated beverages and bone mineral density in young girls, which places them at increased risk of suffering fractures in the future.
    • 15 | P a g e One hypothesis to explain this relationship is that the phosphoric acid contained in some soft drinks (colas) displaces calcium from the bones, lowering bone density of the skeleton and leading to weakened bones, or osteoporosis. However, calcium metabolism studies by Dr. Robert Heaney suggested that the net effect of carbonated soft drinks, (including colas, which use phosphoric acid as the acidulent) on calcium excretion in urine was negligible. Heaney concluded that carbonated soft drinks, which do not contain the nutrients needed for bone health, may displace other foods which do, and that the real issue is that people who drink a lot of soft drinks also tend to have an overall diet that is low in calcium. In the 1950s and 1960s there were attempts in France and Japan to ban the sale of Coca-Cola as dangerous since phosphates can block calcium absorption. However, these were unsuccessful as the amounts of phosphate were shown to be too small to have a significant effect. Sugar content The USDA's recommended daily intake (RDI) of added sugars is less than 10 teaspoons per day for a 2,000-calorie diet. High caloric intake contributes to obesity if not balanced with exercise, with a large amount of exercise being required to offset even small but calorie-rich food and drinks. Until 1985, most of the calories in soft drinks came from sugar or corn syrup. As of 2010, in the United States high-fructose corn syrup(HFCS) is used nearly exclusively as a sweetener because of its lower cost, while in Europe, sucrose dominates, because EUagricultural policies favor production of sugar beets in Europe proper and sugarcane in the former colonies over the production of corn. HFCS has been criticized as having a number of detrimental effects on human health, such as promoting diabetes, hyperactivity, hypertension, and a host of other problems.[45] Although anecdotal evidence has been presented to support such claims, it is well known that the human body
    • 16 | P a g e breaks sucrose down into glucose and fructose before it is absorbed by the intestines. Simple sugars such as fructose are converted into the same intermediates as in glucose metabolism.[46] However, metabolism of fructose is extremely rapid and is initiated by fructokinase. Fructokinase activity is not regulated by metabolism or hormones and proceeds rapidly after intake of fructose. While the intermediates of fructose metabolism are similar to those of glucose, the rates of formation are excessive. This fact promotes fatty acid and triglyceride synthesis in the liver, leading to accumulation of fat throughout the body and possibly non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Increased blood lipid levels also seem to follow fructose ingestion over time. A sugar drink or high-sugar drink may refer to any beverage consisting primarily of water and sugar (often cane sugar or high-fructose corn syrup), including some soft drinks, fruit juices, and energy drinks. Benzene In 2006, the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency published the results of its survey of benzene levels in soft drinks, which tested 150 products and found that four contained benzene levels above the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for drinking water. The United States Food and Drug Administration released its own test results of several soft drinks containing benzoates and ascorbic or erythorbic acid. Five tested drinks contained benzene levels above the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended standard of 5 ppb. The Environmental Working Group has uncovered additional FDA test results that showed the following results: Of 24 samples of diet soda tested between 1995 and 2001 for the presence of benzene, 19 (79%) had amounts of benzene in excess of the federal tap water standard of 5 ppb. One sample
    • 17 | P a g e contained 55 ppb of benzene, 11 fold tap water standards. to date do not pose a safety concern for consumers". Pesticides in India In 2003, the Delhi non-profit Centre for Science and Environment published a disputed report finding pesticide levels in Coke and Pepsi soft drinks sold in India at levels 30 times that considered safe by the European Economic Commission. The Indian Health Minister said the CSE tests were inaccurate, and said that the government's tests found pesticide levels within India's standards but above EU standards. A similar CSE report in August 2006 prompted many state governments to have issued a ban of the sale of soft drinks in schools. Kerala issued a complete ban on the sale or manufacture of soft drinks altogether. (These were later struck down in court.) In return, the soft drink companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi have issued ads in the media regarding the safety of consumption of the drinks. The UK-based Central Science Laboratory, commissioned by Coke, found its products met EU standards in 2006. Coke and the University of Michigan commissioned an independent study of its bottling plants by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), which reported in 2008 no unsafe chemicals in the water supply used. Government regulations: Schools: In recent years, debate on whether high-calorie soft drink vending machines should be allowed in schools has been on the rise. Opponents of the (soft drink) vending machines believe that soft drinks are a significant contributor to childhood obesity and tooth decay, and that allowing soft drink
    • 18 | P a g e sales in schools encourages children to believe they are safe to consume in moderate to large quantities. Opponents argue that schools have a responsibility to look after the health of the children in their care, and that allowing children easy access to soft drinks violates that responsibility. Vending machine proponents believe that obesity is a complex issue and soft drinks are not the only cause. They also note the immense amount of funding that soft drink sales bring to schools. Some peopletake a more moderate stance, saying that soft drink machines should be allowed in schools, but that they should not be the only option available. They propose that when soft drink vending machines are made available on school grounds, the schools should be required to provide children with a choice of alternative drinks (such as fruit juice, flavored water and milk) at a comparable price. Some lawmakers debating the issue in different states have argued that parents—not the government—should be responsible for children's beverage choices. On May 3, 2006, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, Cadbury Schweppes, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association announced new School Beverage Guidelines that will voluntarily remove high-calorie soft drinks from all U.S. schools. On 19 May 2006, the British Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, announced new minimum nutrition standards for school food. Amongst a wide range of measures, from September 2006, school lunches will be free from carbonated drinks. Schools will also end the sale of junk food (including carbonated drinks) in vending machines and tuck shops.
    • 19 | P a g e Taxation In the United States and elsewhere, legislators, health experts and consumer advocates are considering levying higher taxes on the sale of soft drinks and other sweetened beverages to help curb the epidemic of obesity among Americans, and its harmful impact on overall health. Some speculate that higher taxes could help reduce soda consumption. Others say that taxes could help fund education to increase consumer awareness of the unhealthy effects of excessive soft drink consumption, and also help cover costs of caring for conditions resulting from overconsumption. The food and beverage industry holds considerable clout in Washington, DC, as it has contributed more than $50 million to legislators since 2000. In January 2013, a British lobby group called for the price of sugary fizzy drinks to be increased, with the money raised (an estimated £1 billion at 20p per liter) to be put towards a "Children's Future Fund", overseen by an independent body, which would encourage children to eat healthily in school. Bans In March 2013, New York City's mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed to ban the sale of non-diet soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, except in convenience stores and supermarkets. A lawsuit against the ban was upheld by a state judge, who voiced concerns that the ban was "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences". Bloomberg announced that he would be appealing the verdict.
    • 20 | P a g e COMPANY PROFILE
    • 21 | P a g e SOFT DRINKS PRODUCTION Soft drinks are made by mixing dry ingredients and/or fresh ingredients (for example, lemons, oranges, etc.) with water. Production of soft drinks can be done at factories or at home. Soft drinks can be made at home by mixing either a syrup or dry ingredients with carbonated water. Carbonated water is made using a soda siphon or a home carbonation system or by dropping dry ice into water. Syrups are commercially sold by companies such as Soda-Club. Drinks like ginger ale and root beer are often brewed using yeast to cause carbonation. Ingredient quality Of most importance is that the ingredient meets the agreed specification on all major parameters. This is not only the functional parameter (in other words, the level of the major constituent), but the level of impurities, the microbiological status, and physical parameters such as color, particle size, etc. Potential alcohol content A report in October 2006 demonstrated that some soft drinks contain measurable amounts of alcohol. In some older preparations, this resulted from natural fermentation used to build the carbonation. In the United States, soft drinks (as well as other beverages such as non-alcoholic beer) are allowed by law to contain up to 0.5% alcohol by volume. Modern drinks introduce carbon dioxide for carbonation, but there is some speculation that alcohol might result from fermentation of sugars in an unsterile environment. A small amount of alcohol is introduced in some soft drinks where alcohol is used in the preparation of the flavoring extracts such as vanilla extract.
    • 22 | P a g e CHAPTER-II SOFT DRINKS COMPANY PROFILE TIME LINE 1798 The term "soda water" is first coined. 1810 First U.S. patent is issued for the manufacture of imitation mineral waters. 1819 The "soda fountain" is patented by Samuel Fahnestock. 1835 The first bottled soda water is available in the U.S. 1850 A manual, hand & foot operated, filling & corking device, is first used for bottling soda water. 1874 The first ice-cream soda is sold. 1881 The first cola-flavored beverage is introduced. 1892 The crown bottle cap is invented by William Painter. 1898 "Pepsi-Cola" is invented by Caleb Bradham. 1899 The first patent is issued for a glass blowing machine, used to produce glass bottle. 1913 Gas motored trucks replace horse drawn carriages as delivery vehicles. 1919 The American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages is formed. Early 1920's The first automatic vending machines dispense sodas into cups. 1934 Applied color labels are first used on soft drink bottles. The coloring was baked on the face of the bottle. 1957 The first aluminum cans are used. 1965 The resalable top is invented. 1966 The American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages is renamed The National Soft Drink Association. 1970 Is first time plastic bottles are used for soft drinks. 1974 The stay-on tab is invented. 1981 The "talking" vending machine is invented.
    • 23 | P a g e INTRODUCTION TO SOFT DRINK INDUSTRY The main production of soft drink was stored in 1830’s &sincet hen from those experimental beginning there was an evolution until in1781,whentheworlds firstcolaflavoredbeveragewasintroduced.Thesedrinkswerecalledsoftdrinks,onlyto separatethemfromhard alcoholic drinks. This drinks do not contains alcohol & broadly specifying this beverages, includes a variety of regulated carbonated soft drinks, diet & caffeine free drinks, bottled water juices, juice drinks, sport drinks &evenreadytodrinktea/coffeepacks.Sowecansaythatsoftdrinksmean carbonateddrinks.Today, soft drink is more favorite refreshment drink than tea, coffee,juiceetc.It is said that where there is a consumer, there is a producer & this result into completion. Bigger the player, the harder it plays. In suchsituation broad identity is very strong. It takes long time to make broadfamous. Coca – Cola has its beginning in 1981 & since then has been one of the three most dominate players in this soft drink industry. Growth Strategies in Soft Drinks A management report from Business Insights. The battle for ‘share of throat’ Positioning of new soft drinks launches aimed at children29% 36% In spite of growing competition in the soft drinks market, many companies, ranging from multinationals to niche specialists, continue to see volume growth well in excess of the market average. Much of their success can be attributed to progressive attitudes to their competitive environment and by exploiting new production, packaging and distribution technologies, they are able to meet consumers' needs more accurately and immediately than ever before. With leading players such as The Coca-Cola Company driving the battle.
    • 24 | P a g e Market Share in India The two global majors Pepsi & Coca – Cola dominate the soft drinkindustrymarket.Coca –Cola,whichhadwindedupitsbusinessfromIndiaduringthe introduction of IERA regime reentered in India after 16 years letter in1993.Coca–Colahasacquiredamajorsoftdrinkmarket bybuyingoutlocalbrandslikeThums up,Limca&GoldSpotfromParleBeverages.Pepsi although started a couple of years before Coca – Cola in1991,rightnowithaslowermarketshare.Ithas broughtoverMumbaibasedDukesrangeofsoftdrinks.Both Cola manufactures Pepsi & Coca – Cola come up with their ownmarketshare&claimtohaveincreasedtheirshare.MarketShare (in%)BrandNameMarketShareMarketShare(IMRB)Pepsi 41 49Coca – Cola 57 48Other Brands 2 3 Raw Materials used in Soft Drinks 1. Water: The simple sweetened soft drink contains about 90% of water, whileindiet drinks;itcontains95%ofwater. 2. Flavor: Flavor is of great importance in soft drink. Even water from differentplaces hasdifferenttaste.Theflavorfortasteaddedcanbenaturalorartificial,acidic,caffeine. 3. Artificial Flavor: These are the flavors manufactured from natural extracts; this issued to give greater choice, in taste to consumers. 4. Acids: Acids like citric acid & phosphoric acid are added to giverefreshingtartness orbite&helpinpreservingthequalityofadrink. 5. Natural Flavors: These are the flavors, which are extracted from fruits, vegetables, nuts, barks, leaves etc. in soft drink containing natural flavors & fruit juice
    • 25 | P a g e OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
    • 26 | P a g e CHAPTER -III OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 1. To know about the awareness among the public regarding innovative products offered by the soft drinks 2. To determine the public response to the product and quantity 3. To know about the distribution channels, physical distribution system and sales promotional activities of the various companies. 4. To find out the external factors which stimulates the public to purchase the particular brand? 5. To highlight the pricing the soft drinks and its effectiveness. 6. To suggest ways and means for the improving the marketing of soft drink products. 7. To identify the internal factors which decides brand choice? 8. To find out the needs and necessity for marketing a brand. 9. To know about which soft drinks have heavy marketing trend. 10.To know about the awareness of the consumers soft drinks.
    • 27 | P a g e REASEARCH METHODOLOGY
    • 28 | P a g e CHAPTER-IV REASEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. SAMPLE UNITS: Respondents include students and aged person 2. SAMPLE SIZE: The sample size of field study was restricted 120. 3. SAMPLE AREA: The respondents were selected from karaikudi town only. 4. SAMPLING TECHNIQUES: Convenience sampling techniques was used due to lack of time. 5. NATURE OF DATA: The data for the study includes only primary data 6. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION: Questionnaire method is only used for collecting data
    • 29 | P a g e DATA ANALYSIS
    • 30 | P a g e CHAPTER – V DATA ANALYSIS TABLE – I 1. GENDER COMPOSITION S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 Male 67 55.83 2 FEMALE 53 44.10 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 67(55.83%) of male respondents and 53( 44.10%) are consuming soft drinks in karaikudi town.
    • 31 | P a g e CHART– I GENDER COMPOSITION 0 50 100 150 200 250 S.NO 1 2
    • 32 | P a g e TABLE – II 2. AGE CATOGARY S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 10 – 20 21 17.5 2 20 – 30 65 54.17 3 Above 30 34 28.33 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 21 (17.5%) are having only 10- 20 years aged person, 65 (54.17%) are 20 – 30 years aged persons and 34 (28.33%) respondents are having above 30 years aged persons.
    • 33 | P a g e CHART – II AGE CATOGARY 0 50 100 150 200 250
    • 34 | P a g e TABLE – III 3. MARITAL STATUS S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 MARRIED 57 47.5 2 UN MARREID 63 52.5 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 63 (52.5%) respondents are married 57(47.5%) respondents are un married.
    • 35 | P a g e CHART – III MARITAL STATUS 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 S.NO 1 2
    • 36 | P a g e TABLE – IV 4. OCCUPATION S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 EMPLOYEE 31 25.83 2 BUSINESS 23 19.17 3 STUDENTS 40 33.33 4 OTHER SPECIFY 26 21.67 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is evident that out of 120 respondents nearly 31 (25.83%) respondents are employee 23 (19.17%) are
    • 37 | P a g e businessmen’s 40 (33.33)%) of respondents are students and 26 (21.67%) are in other category. CHART – IV OCCUPATION 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% S.NO 2 4
    • 38 | P a g e TABLE - V 5. INCOME LEVEL S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 BELOW 3000 29 24.17 2 4000 – 5000 34 28.33 3 ABOVE 6000 27 22.5 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 29 (.2417%) respondents are earn below 3000 salary, 34 (28.33%) are earn 4000 - 5000, 27 (22.5)%) respondents are earn above 6000.
    • 39 | P a g e CHART - V INCOME LEVEL 0 50 100 150
    • 40 | P a g e TABLE –VI 6. Educational Background S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 HIGH SCHOOL 21 17.5 2 HIGHER SECONDARY 27 22.5 3 GRADUATION 49 40.83 4 POST GRADUATION 23 19.17 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 21 (17.5%) respondents are high school students 27 (22.5%) are
    • 41 | P a g e higher secondary students, 49 (40.83)%) respondents are graduation and 23 (19.17%) respondents are post graduates. CHART – VI Educational Background 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
    • 42 | P a g e TABLE – VII 7. FAMILY NATURE OF RESPONDENCE S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 1-3 57 47.5 2 4-6 46 38.33 3 Above 7 17 14.17 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 57 (47.5%) are having under 1- 3, 46 (38.33%) are under 4 –6 and 17 (14.17%) respondents are under below 7.
    • 43 | P a g e CHART – VII FAMILY NATURE OF RESPONDENCE 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 S.NO 1 2 3 40000-50000 30000-40000 20000-30000 10000-20000 0-10000
    • 44 | P a g e TABLE – VIII 8. ARE YOU LIKE SOFT DRINKS S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 YES 67 55.83 2 NO 53 44.10 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 67 (55.83%) of respondents are like soft drinks and 53( 44.10%) respondents are not like.
    • 45 | P a g e CHART – VIII ARE YOU LIKE SOFT DRINKS 0 50 100 150 200 250 S.NO 1 2
    • 46 | P a g e TABLE - IX 9. CONSUMING BRANDS S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 MAAZA/SLICE 35 29.16 2 PEPSI/COKE 22 25.48 3 FANTA/MIRANDA 33 27.5 4 OTHER BRAND 10 18.33 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 35 (29.16%) respondents are likemaaza/slice, 22 (25.48%) are
    • 47 | P a g e like pepsi/coke, 33 (27.5)%) respondents like Fanta/Miranda and 10(18.33%) like other brand. CHART - IX CONSUMING BRANDS 0 50 100 150 S.NO 2 4 100-150 50-100 0-50
    • 48 | P a g e TABLE - X 10. PERIOD OF CONSUMPTION S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 DAILY 20 18.33 2 WEEKLY 32 25 3 MONTHLY 34 28.33 4 OCCATIONALY 34 28.33 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 30 (8.33%) consume soft drinks daily, 30 (25%) are consumes weekly, 34
    • 49 | P a g e (28.33%) respondents are consume monthly and 34(28.33%) respondents consumes occasionally. CHART - X PERIOD OF CONSUMPTION 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% S.NO 1 2 3 4
    • 50 | P a g e TABLE – XI 11. REASON FOR LIKE TO DRANK THESE PRODUCTS S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 TASTE 56 38.33 2 COST 5 4.17 3 QUALITY 43 27.51 4 OTHER 16 13.33 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 46 (38.33%) are consuming soft drinks for taste,5 (4.17%) are
    • 51 | P a g e consumed for the purpose of cost and 33(27.51%) consumed for quality and 16 ( 13.33% ) for other reason. CHART – XI REASON FOR LIKE TO DRANK THESE PRODUCTS 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 S.NO 1 23 4
    • 52 | P a g e TABLE – XII 12. WHO INDUCED TO BUY THIS PRODUCT S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 FRIENDS 20 18.33 2 RELATIVES 32 25 3 NEIGHBORS 34 28.33 4 OTHERS 34 28.33 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 20 (8.33%) induced buy friends, 30 (25%) are induced by relatives, 34
    • 53 | P a g e (28.33%) respondents are induced by neighbors and 34(28.33%) respondents are induced by others. CHART – XII WHO INDUCED TO BUY THIS PRODUCT S.NO 1 2 3 4 100-150 50-100 0-50
    • 54 | P a g e TABLE –XIII 13. PRODUCT INDUCED TO BUY S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 ADVERTISEMEN 34 28.33 2 PACKAGING 67 55.83 3 PRICE 19 15.84 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 34 (28.33%) are induced by advertisement, 67 (55.83%) are induced by packaging and 19 (15.84%) respondents are induced by price.
    • 55 | P a g e CHART –XIII PRODUCT INDUCED TO BUY -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
    • 56 | P a g e TABLE – XIV 14. MODE OF ADVERTISEMENT S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 T.V 56 38.33 2 RADIO 5 4.17 3 PRESS 43 27.51 4 OTHER 16 13.33 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 46 (38.33%) are came to consuming soft drinks through advertisements, 5
    • 57 | P a g e (4.17%) are know soft drinks through radio and 33 (27.51%) are through press and 16 (13.33%) from other ways. CHART – XIV MODE OF ADVERTISEMENT 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 S.NO 1 2 3 4
    • 58 | P a g e TABLE –XV 15. PERIOD OF CONSUMPTION PER DAY S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 ONCE 20 18.33 2 TWICE 32 25 3 THRICE 34 28.33 4 ABOVE THRICE 34 28.33 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 30 (8.33%) consume soft drinks once per day, 30 (25%) are consumes twice
    • 59 | P a g e per day, 34 (28.33%) respondents are consume thrice per day and 34(28.33%) respondents consumes above thrice. CHART –XV PERIOD OF CONSUMPTION PER DAY 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 S.NO 1 2 3 4
    • 60 | P a g e TABLE – XVI 16. PRICE OF SOFT DRINK IS S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 HIGH 29 24.17 2 MEDIUM 34 28.33 3 LOW 27 22.5 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 29 (.2417%) respondents are giving their opinion about price is high, 34(28.33) is medium and 27(22.5) is low.
    • 61 | P a g e CHART – XVI PRICE OF SOFT DRINK IS S.NO 1 2 3
    • 62 | P a g e TABLE – XVII 17. WHICH MEDIA GIVEN ATTRACTIVE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS PRODUCT S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 NEWSPAPER 45 37.49 2 T.V 27 29.65 3 RADIO 35 31.54 4 PRESS 10 18.33 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 35 (29.16%) respondents are suggest newspaper gives attractive
    • 63 | P a g e advertisement, 22 (25.48%) are suggest T.V, 33 (27.5)%) respondents are suggest radio and 10(18.33%) are suggest press. CHART – XVII WHICH MEDIA GIVEN ATTRACTIVE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS PRODUCT 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 S.NO 1 2 3 4
    • 64 | P a g e TABLE– XVIII 18. OPINION ABOUT THESE PRODUCTS WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER BRAND S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 HIGH 29 24.17 2 MEDIUM 34 28.33 3 LOW 27 22.5 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 29 (.2417%) respondents are giving their opinion when their like
    • 65 | P a g e products went compare to other brand is 29(24.17) is high, 34(28.33) is medium and 27(22.5) is low. CHART– XVIII OPINION ABOUT THESE PRODUCTS WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER BRAND -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Series1 Series2
    • 66 | P a g e TABLE – XIX 19. SATISFIED WITH PACKAGING OF THEIR SOFT DRINKS S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 YES 67 55.83 2 NO 53 44.10 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 67 (55.83%) of respondents are satisfied their product’s packaging and 53( 44.10%) respondents are not satisfied.
    • 67 | P a g e CHART – XIX SATISFIED WITH PACKAGING OF THEIR SOFT DRINKS 0 50 100 150 100-150 50-100 0-50
    • 68 | P a g e TABLE-XX 20. AWARENESS ABOUT PESTICIDES ISSUES S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 FULLY KNOWN 34 28.33 2 PARTLY 67 55.83 3 DOES NOT KNOW 19 15.84 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 34 (28.33%) are know about pesticides issues, 67 (55.83%) are known partly and 19 (15.84%) respondents are does not know about the pesticides issues to drank.
    • 69 | P a g e CHART-XX AWARENESS ABOUT PESTICIDES ISSUES 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 S.NO 1 2 3
    • 70 | P a g e TABLE-XXI 21. CONSUMING SOFT DRINK AFTER KNOWN OF PESTICIDES ISSUES S.NO FACTOR NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 YES 63 52.5 2 NO 57 47.5 TOTAL 120 100 From the above analysis it is found that out of 120 respondents nearly 63 (52.5%) are continue drinking after wnown well of pesticides issues and 57(47.5%) are avoid drinking soft drinks after known well about pesticides issues.
    • 71 | P a g e CHART-XXI CONSUMING SOFT DRINK AFTER KNOWN OF PESTICIDES ISSUES 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% S.NO 1 2
    • 72 | P a g e FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
    • 73 | P a g e CHAPTER - VI FINDINGS OF THE STUDY The following findings are made out of the study in karaikudi town. Buyers of soft drinks are influenced by so many factors recording their preference and purchase. The survey question papers contain 30 questions. 1. Nearly 55.83% of male respondents are taking soft drinks when compared to female. 2. Out of 120 respondents, the majority respondents (33.33%) are from student’s category. 3. Most of the respondents are graduates. 4. Respondents whose income level is Rs.3000-5000 (28.33%) are mostly drank soft drinks when compared to others income classification. 5. Slice is the fast moving item in karaikudi because it contains more fruit juice than others. 6. It is clear that most of the uses (38.34%) prefer to take soft drinks occasionally. 7. Out of 120 respondents, the majority respondents (33.33%) are mostly drank soft drinks that are in the age group of 20 – 25. 8. Most of the respondents are taking their soft drinks only from shop and not from function & educational institute. 9. It is known that most of the respondents (31.68%) are buying soft drinks for the purpose of refreshment and taste. 10.Most of the respondents are buying 200ml package.
    • 74 | P a g e FAST MOVING ITEM ITEMS REASON CONSUMING GROUP 200ml Slice Contains fruit juice Family 200ml Fanta Comfortable Advertisements Youngsters
    • 75 | P a g e LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
    • 76 | P a g e CHAPTER – VII LIMITATION OF THE STUDY 1. The study pertains only to the KARAIKUDI town and therefore the findings of the study cannot be generalized to all situations and places. 2. Due to the lack of time, the sample size was restricted to 120 respondents only. 3. It is not possible for the researcher to undertake a full-fledged empirical study. 4. Only convenience sampling techniques was followed for this study work due to respondent’s busy schedule. 5. Some respondents are not disclosing all the facts openly as they are making their opinion with some personal hesitation. 6. Majority of respondents hesitate to give detailed answers to open end question seven though they literates. They are interested to give answers only to closed end questions.
    • 77 | P a g e SUGGESION OF THE STUDY
    • 78 | P a g e CHAPTER – VIII SUGGESION OF THE STUDY 1. Most of the respondents feel that the measurements of ingredients have to be separately given in the container of soft drinks. 2. Based on opinion of respondents, fruit juice has to be added more and improve quality. 3. Price can also be reduced to boost sales. 4. They have to adopt more advertisement program in order to retain old customers and also to invite new customers. 5. The researcher may suggest that by way of introducing pet packs 200ml, they can specify the public. 6. Sales promotion activates and channels of distribution are to improved by the company to improve the sales. 7. The company has to concentrate mre on marketing are and they have to create awareness among public.
    • 79 | P a g e CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY
    • 80 | P a g e CHAPTER – IX CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY 1. In this study it is known that most of the users prefer to take soft drinks occasionally. 2. In this, it is concluded that youngster are most prefer to take cool drinks and they except 3. more taste refreshment. 4. After these pesticide issue consumers do not must prefer soft drinks and also they advise their friends and relatives not to consume soft drinks often. 5. Majority of the respondents prefer to have slice, it contains more fruit extracts than others. The company has to take steps to attract more people by adding more fruit contents then colored flavors in other kind of soft dinks also. 6. Most of the respondents know about we recent pesticides issues. 7. Most o the respondents feel that diseases are easily spread through various means and so now a days they concentrate more on food in order to prevent them.
    • 81 | P a g e APPENDIX OF THE STUDY
    • 82 | P a g e CHAPTER – X APPENDIX OF THE STUDY THE STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS “SOFT DRINKS” IN KARAIKUDI TOWN 1. Name : 2. Age : A) 10-20 B) 20-30 C) Above 30 3. Gender : A) Male B) Female 4. Occupation : A) Student B) Govt.Employee C) Private Employee D) Other 5. Family Size : A) 1-3 B) 4-6 C) Above 6 6. Marital Status : A) Married B) Un-Married 7. Monthly Income: A) Below 3000 B) 4000 – 5000 C) 6000 - 9000 8. Do u like any Soft drinks.? A) Yes B) No 9. If, yes which brand do you consume? A) Maaza/Slice B) Pepsi C) Miranda D) Others 10. If other means please specify………………………………….. 11. For what purpose do you like this product..? A) Taste B) Cost C) Quality D) Others 12. If other means please specify…………………………………. 13. Which of the product induced you to buy this product.? A) Advertisement B) Packaging C) Price 14. Who induced you to buy this product.? A) Friends B) relatives C) Neighbors D) Others 15. How many times are you drink these soft drinks..? A) Once B) twice C) weekly D) Monthly 16. If any of your family members use other brand..? A) Yes B No 17. If yes means please specify………………………………….. 18. How many times you will drink these soft drinks per day..? A) Once B) twice C) thrice D) above Thrice
    • 83 | P a g e 19. The price of the soft drinks is.? A) High B) Medium C) low 20.Have you seen any soft drinks advertisements? A) Yes B No 21. If yes means please specify………………………………….. 22. Which media given attractive advertisement for this product? A) Newspaper B) Television C) Radio D) Magazines 23. Do you need any changes on your soft drinks in advertisement..? A) Yes B No 24. If yes means please specify………………………………….. 25. Which is your opinion about these products when compared to other brand..? A) High B) Medium C) low 26. Are you satisfied with packaging of these soft drinks? A) Yes B No 27. Awareness about pesticides issue of soft drinks? A) Fully Known B) Partly C) Does not know 28. Will you drank these cool drinks in future after known about pesticides issue.? A) Yes B No 29. If yes means please specify………………………………………………… 30. Give your opinion about soft drinks in general…………………………………..