Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Market Research on Nestle Maggi
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Market Research on Nestle Maggi

1,612
views

Published on

Published in: Marketing

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,612
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
68
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Submitted by: Sahil Bansal - U110104 Shalil Guha – U110107 Sherwin Trindade – U110108 Subhradeep Mitra – U110115 Sukant Bisoi – U110118 Swagatika Priyadarsini – U110119 Tapaswini Mallick – U110120
  • 2.  To increase the falling market share of Nestle Maggi
  • 3.  To identify the attributes where maggi lags w.r.t. competition  To evaluate customer expectations from instant noodles on certain parameters  To find the gaps between the customer preferences and present offerings of Maggi
  • 4. • Primary data:   • FGD Questionnaire Analysis    Univariate Bivariate Multivariate  Factor analysis  Cluster analysis  Jaccard analysis  Stochastic model  Multiple variable regression
  • 5.  To understand the perception and the expectation of a general customer from instant noodles.  The participants (8):     XIMB students Age: 20-26 yrs Seven male and one female Full time hostel residents
  • 6.  Observations Instant noodles formed an important part of their menu especially when shortage of time  People also liked maggi due to convenience of preparation.  Many respondents were not aware of the new brands  Consumers preferred variety of flavors as compared to plain maggi  They consume maggi for snacks, and when they want to have a quick bite 
  • 7.  Findings  The preference for instant noodle is due to      Maggie has the highest TOMA in our respondents. The key driving force for Maggi were    Ease of availability Good alternative to ordering from out/preparing regular food at home Want to have a quick snack Availability Brand Image Zero brand loyalty: They wouldn’t mind switching new brands because of the new variety offerings.
  • 8. AGE The majority of our respondent lies in the age group of 19-24 (63%) and 25-30 age group (31%)
  • 9. INCOME The income level of the respondents are 5-10 lakh (33%), 1-5 lakh (29%), >15 lakh (12%), <1 lakh (7%)
  • 10. OCCUPATION The majority of our respondents are working group(49%) and students (48%)
  • 11. PREFER MAGGI Most of our respondents prefer maggi (82%)
  • 12. % Awareness of Instant noodles 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 19-24 25-30 31-35 above 35
  • 13. % Awareness based on sex 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% male female
  • 14. Chilli Oriental Schezwan Hot Garlic Manchurian Satisfied Neutral Capsica Dissatisfied Curry Tomato Chicken Masala 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
  • 15.  People prefer Schezwan, Tomato and oriental flavors  People do not prefer Masala and Curry flavors Masala Chicken Tomato Curry Capsica Manchurian Hot Garlic Schezwan Oriental Chilli Satisfied 1 4 8 7 7 9 9 7 4 7 Neutral 9 13 25 20 25 18 18 20 28 19 Dissatisfied 68 49 38 46 28 38 35 34 28 38 Grand Total 80 81 79 80 79 78 78 78 79 78
  • 16. Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 Price Taste Shape_of_noodles .710 .756 Packaging .763 Preparation_time .746 Ease_of_preparation 2 .723 Brand_image Healthy Availability_in_market .707 Variety_of_flavors .738 Value_for_money Satisfies_hunger Advertisment
  • 17. Preference Advertisment Satisfies_hunger Value_for_money Variety_of_flavors Availability_in_market Healthy Brand_image Preference Ease_of_preparation Preparation_time Packaging Shape_of_noodles Taste Price .000 .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700
  • 18. Factor 1: Convenience Factor 2: Coverage • • • • • Taste Packaging Preparation time Ease-of-Preparation Shape of noodle • Availability in market • Variety
  • 19. Summary:  The following factors influence the buying behaviour of users using maggi Convenience: such as ease of preparation, variety, packaging and preparation time Coverage: such as brand image and availability in market 
  • 20. Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 Price Taste Shape_of_noodles Packaging Preparation_time Ease_of_preparation 2 .706 .860 .743 Brand_image Healthy Availability_in_market .709 Variety_of_flavors Value_for_money Satisfies_hunger Advertisment .736 .723 .782
  • 21. Preference Advertisment Satisfies_hunger Value_for_money Variety_of_flavors Availability_in_market Healthy Brand_image Preference Ease_of_preparation Preparation_time Packaging Shape_of_noodles Taste Price .000 .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 .800
  • 22. Factor 1: Convenience & Attractiveness Factor 2: Coverage & perception • Packaging • Preparation Time • Ease-ofPreparation • Brand Image • Availability in market • Variety of flavors • Advertisement
  • 23. Summary:  The following factors influence the buying behaviour of users of competitors   Convenience & Attractiveness – such as ease of preparation and preparation time . Coverage & Perception- such as Brand Image, Availability in market, Variety of flavors, Advertisement
  • 24. Age:19-24, Single, Income: 1-10 lakh Age:25-30 Working, Income: 5-10 lakh Age:19-24, Single, Income: >10 lakh
  • 25. Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 • Single • Age 19-24 • Family income 1-10 lakh • Single • Working • Age 25-30 • Family income greater than 5-10 lakh • Single • Age 19-24 • Family income greater than >10 lakh
  • 26.  Cluster 1 : Primary users are single with age group of 19-24 for whom convenience is an essence and who most probably do not have a partner or family to cook and prepare food for them on a regular basis.  Cluster 2 : Primarily users who are working and single with age group 25-30 and they do not have time to prepare/cook food, consume maggi regular basis.  Cluster 3 : Primarily students coming from high income families who consume instant noodles less than once a week.
  • 27. Brands Nissin Top Ramen Chings Maggi Total Respondents 4 2 2 46 54 TOMA 85% The TOMA for maggi is 85%
  • 28. Attribute Maggi Knorr Price 0.807 - Taste 0.719 0.257 Shape of noodles 0.719 0.2 Preparation Time 0.831 0.21 Ease of preparation 0.807 0.2 Brand Image 0.878 0.225 Healthy 0.646 0.3 Availability 0.865 0.257 Variety 0.768 0.303 Value for money 0.817 0.218 Advertisement 0.807 0.235
  • 29.  Primary    Preparation time Brand image Availability  Primary    drivers of maggi: drivers of Knorr Soupy noodles Healthy Availability Variety of offerings
  • 30. Attribute Top Maggi Foodles Yippie Ramen Knorr Chings Price 2% -4% -3% 0% 10% -4% Taste -6% -2% -4% 5% 3% 3% Shape_of_noodles -4% -4% 5% 7% -4% -1% Packaging 0% 0% -1% 1% 0% -1% Preparation_time 5% 0% -2% -1% 3% -4% Ease_of_preparation 0% -1% 5% 0% -5% 0% Brand_image 9% 2% -2% -3% -4% -3% Healthy -12% 16% 1% -6% 0% 1% Availability_in_market 6% -3% -2% 0% 0% -1% Variety_of_flavors -2% -7% -1% 4% 2% 4% Value_for_money 4% 0% -2% -1% -3% 2% Satisfies_hunger -6% -1% 3% 0% -1% 4% Advertisment 5% 1% 1% -6% 0% -1% Strength >5 Opportunity 0-5 Weakness <-5 Threat -5-0
  • 31. • Brand Image • Availability • Advertisement • Preparation Time • Healthy • Taste • Satisfies Hunger Strength Threat • Shape of noodles • Variety of flavors Weakness Opportunity • Price • Value for money • Packaging
  • 32. % preference Prefered Set ratio Stochastic Share Maggi 92% 1.79 0.513393 55% Knorr 48% 1.95 0.246154 26% Foodles 35% 2 0.175 19% .93
  • 33. On comparison with other brands we find that maggi occupies 55% mindshare of the consumers.  The consumer is likely to buy a packet of maggi once every two times he visits a mall/supermarket from a range of instant noodles available.  In comparision, Its nearest competitors  Knorr (26% mind share) buying probability (1:4)  Foodles(19% mind share) buying probability (1:5)   The company has to keep a track of stochastic data on a periodic basis to identify the pattern in future buying behaviour of the consumer
  • 34. Model Summaryb Model 1 R .654 Std. Error of the R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate .428 .322 .87745 a Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) price taste shape packing preparation_time B Std. Error 6.868 .548 Standardiz ed Coefficients Beta t 12.532 Sig. .000 95.0% Confidence Interval for B Lower Upper Bound Bound 5.775 7.961 -.044 -.815 .162 -.159 -.175 .176 .169 .153 .197 .152 .264 -.696 .147 -.121 -.155 1.835 -4.827 1.059 -.806 -1.153 .071 .000 .293 .423 .253 -.028 -1.152 -.143 -.551 -.477 .673 -.478 .466 .234 .128 .326 .173 .264 1.884 .064 -.019 .670 brand healthy availability variety valueformoney .323 -.141 .279 -.310 -.194 .210 .121 .161 .103 .170 -.033 -.130 .205 .245 -.173 -.209 -1.163 1.731 2.255 -1.141 .835 .249 .088 .027 .258 -.463 -.383 -.042 .027 -.534 .376 .101 .600 .437 .145 satisfaction -.040 .146 -.037 -.276 .783 -.332 .251 .232 .159 -.140 -1.038 .303 -.481 .152 ease_of_preparation advertisment
  • 35. Model summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .371a .138 -.023 1.31486 Coefficientsa Standard ized Unstandardized Coeffici 95.0% Confidence Coefficients ents Interval for B Std. Model 1 B (Constant) Error 4.378 .088 .217 taste -.034 shape packing Beta 1.030 price Lower t Sig. Upper Bound Bound 4.249 .000 2.323 6.433 .406 .686 -.344 .520 .217 -.023 -.155 .877 -.467 .400 -.066 .220 -.042 -.302 .764 -.506 .373 -.281 .230 -.194 .227 -.740 .179 .056 1.218 preparation -.132 .235 -.094 -.560 .577 -.600 .337 .316 .234 .212 1.353 .180 -.150 .782 -.299 .260 .253 -.817 .218 _time ease_of_pre paration brand -.192 1.153 healthy .397 .221 .272 1.793 .077 -.045 .838 availability .068 .189 .054 .360 .720 -.308 .444 variety .275 .228 .201 1.207 .232 -.180 .730 valueformon .180 .241 .129 .459 -.302 .661 .745
  • 36. Maggi R square value is 0.428 Following variables are found to have positive correlation     Ease of preparation Availability Brand Advertisement Competition R square value is 0.138 Following variables are found to have positive correlation.    Ease of preparation Healthy Variety
  • 37.  We can see that the drivers for Maggi and its competition are different.  As the consumer is becoming health conscious it is shifting towards noodles which are perceived to be healthy, maggi is not considering healthy.  Also maggi does not have the choice of flavors as compared to others and is likely to lose market share.  Maggi’s strong points are brand image, availability and the company has to build up on it by coming up with new choice of flavors, introducing health conscious foods.
  • 38. The brand loyalty of maggi is very low and there is a high chance of shifting to a competitor’s product  We can see that the drivers for Maggi and top ramen are different is availability and brand image but for competition it is variety of flavors  Maggi is widely available hence it sells more but as the supply of competitor product increases its share is likely to fall  Maggi is not considered healthy and the shift of the younger generation towards health foods does not augur well for it. 
  • 39.  The stochastic share of maggi is 55%, the company still has an edge over competitors as far as buying is concerned.  This also gives an opportunity to the company to improve the market share by identifying the areas where it lacks namely :   Variety of flavors Health food  Maggi’s strong points are brand image which is very difficult to lose. Hence the company should build up on the brand image that it has build over the years
  • 40.  Nestle needs to increase its advertisements potraying Maggi as a healthy product  They need to come up with flavours that are in keeping with the customer preferences.  Maggi should withdraw flavors like masala and curry and bring in new flavors such as schezwan and manchurian.

×