<ul><li>Insecticides (India) Private Limited was incorporated by Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and his family in December 1996. </li...
Global & Indian Consumption Source:   http://www.business-standard.com/pdf/rallis%20india-initiating%20coverage%20-%2020.0...
Source:   http://www.business-standard.com/pdf/rallis%20india-initiating%20coverage%20-%2020.07.09.pdf
Cost comparison Manual  weeding/ha Cost Herbicide Usage + Hand weeding Cost First weeding 25 DAP 15x 80 = 1200 Any one of ...
Gaining  more Importance … <ul><li>Nearly 35% Average yield loss due to weeds. </li></ul><ul><li>Labor shortage (6.8 %) </...
 
<ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>To study the awareness of farmers about the product HIJACK </li></ul><ul><li>To study...
<ul><li>Sampling design : Purposive sampling </li></ul><ul><li>Size  :  30 respondents </li></ul><ul><li>Area  :  Gobisett...
Tools of analysis <ul><li>Percentage analysis </li></ul><ul><li>In mathematics, a percentage is a way of expressing a numb...
Classification based on Age  Sl. No Age(in years) No of farmers Percentage 1. <30 4 13.33 2. 31 – 40 11 36.67 3. 41 - 50 1...
Classification based on Education SI. No Educational level No of  farmers Percentage 1. School 26 86.67 2. Graduate 2 6.67...
Classification based on Occupation SI. No Occupation No  of  farmers Percentage 1. Agriculture only 28  93.3 2. Agricultur...
Classification based on Farming Experience SI. No Farming experience No of  farmers percentage 1. <10 3 10 2. 11-20 11 36....
Classification based on Land holding Sl. No Size of Land Holding (in ac) Number of Farmers Percentage  1. < 2.5 21 70.00 2...
Mode of purchase Sl. No Mode of  Purchase Number of Farmers Percentage  1. Cash  22 73.33 2. credit  2 6.67 3. Cash +Credi...
<ul><li>Awareness  about  the  product  HIJACK  among Farmers   </li></ul>
Awareness about HIJACK SI.NO Awareness No of Farmers Percentage 1. Aware 11 36.67 2. Not Aware 19 63.33 Total= 30 100
Source of Information SI. No Source  of  Information Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Dealers 8 72.72 2. Peer group --- 0 3...
Users of product HIJACK SI. No Usage Number  of  Farmers Percentage 1. Users 7 23.33 2. Non-Users 23 76.67 Total = 30 100
Product identification By Farmers SI. No Mode of identification Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Packaging  material 2 28.5...
RANK BASED QUOTIENT <ul><li>Formula  </li></ul><ul><li>RBQ =  </li></ul><ul><li>Fi = Frequency of the farmers for the i th...
Rank Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Dealers 0.71 0.25 - - - - - - - 96.00 Comp.Rep.guidance - 0.25 0.55 - - - - - - 80.00...
Purchase influenced  factors ranking Factors Rank Dealers 1 Company .Rep.guidance 2 Advertisement 3 Low price 4 Ease avail...
Rank Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Not aware 0.82 - - - - - - - - 82 High price - - - - - - - - - 0 Satisfied with prese...
Factors influencing ranked for non-purchase Factors Rank Dealer  recommended other product 1 Not aware 2 Satisfied with pr...
Farmers Perception about the product <ul><li>PERCEPTION </li></ul><ul><li>Perception is the process by which an individual...
Perception about the product SI.NO Perception Number of farmers Percentage 1. Fair 2 28.6 2. Some what better 4 57.1 3. Sa...
Perceptual Mapping Analysis price low High low High Credit facility HIJACK ATTRATAP ROUNDUP
Expectation of Farmers <ul><li>EXPECTATION </li></ul><ul><li>Customer expectations are based on customers’ knowledge and e...
Expectation of Farmers SI. No  Expectation Number of farmers Percentage 1 Making available in time 3 42.9 2 Reducing  pric...
<ul><li>FINDINGS& SUGGESTIONS </li></ul>
Findings <ul><li>Dealers plays major role in Sales of particular brand </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness about the product is co...
Suggestions <ul><li>Product promotion by Credit facility  to dealers and  fixing  incentives  to  dealers </li></ul><ul><l...
<ul><li>Reference </li></ul><ul><li>Kotler Philip(2005), “Marketing Management” , Prentice – Hall of India Pvt Ltd, New De...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Awareness Perception And Expectation By Farmers On Brand Hijack

1,109 views
965 views

Published on

Its study for insecticide India Ltd, done at Gobisettipalayam Taluk in Erode district

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,109
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Awareness Perception And Expectation By Farmers On Brand Hijack

  1. 3. <ul><li>Insecticides (India) Private Limited was incorporated by Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and his family in December 1996. </li></ul><ul><li>Later in October 2001, it was converted into public limited company. </li></ul><ul><li>Insecticides (India) Limited (IIL) did not carry any business from December 1996 till October 2001 and started commercial production in the March 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Listed company in both BSE &NSE </li></ul>
  2. 4. Global & Indian Consumption Source: http://www.business-standard.com/pdf/rallis%20india-initiating%20coverage%20-%2020.07.09.pdf
  3. 5. Source: http://www.business-standard.com/pdf/rallis%20india-initiating%20coverage%20-%2020.07.09.pdf
  4. 6. Cost comparison Manual weeding/ha Cost Herbicide Usage + Hand weeding Cost First weeding 25 DAP 15x 80 = 1200 Any one of pre-emergence herbicide 2x325=650 Second weeding 40 DAP 10 x 80 = 800 Hand weeding 10x80=800 Total= 2000 1450
  5. 7. Gaining more Importance … <ul><li>Nearly 35% Average yield loss due to weeds. </li></ul><ul><li>Labor shortage (6.8 %) </li></ul><ul><li>Use of Herbicide saves cost </li></ul><ul><li>Demand increases year by year </li></ul>
  6. 9. <ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>To study the awareness of farmers about the product HIJACK </li></ul><ul><li>To study the farmers perception on product HIJACK </li></ul><ul><li>To find the Expectations of farmers </li></ul>
  7. 10. <ul><li>Sampling design : Purposive sampling </li></ul><ul><li>Size : 30 respondents </li></ul><ul><li>Area : Gobisettipalayam </li></ul><ul><li>Data collection tool: Questionnaire </li></ul>
  8. 11. Tools of analysis <ul><li>Percentage analysis </li></ul><ul><li>In mathematics, a percentage is a way of expressing a number as a fraction of 100 (per cent meaning &quot;per hundred&quot;) </li></ul>
  9. 12. Classification based on Age Sl. No Age(in years) No of farmers Percentage 1. <30 4 13.33 2. 31 – 40 11 36.67 3. 41 - 50 13 43.33 4. > 50 2 6.67 Total = 30 100
  10. 13. Classification based on Education SI. No Educational level No of farmers Percentage 1. School 26 86.67 2. Graduate 2 6.67 3. Post graduate - 0 4. Illiterate 2 6.67 Total = 30 100
  11. 14. Classification based on Occupation SI. No Occupation No of farmers Percentage 1. Agriculture only 28 93.3 2. Agriculture + business 2 6.7 Total = 30 100
  12. 15. Classification based on Farming Experience SI. No Farming experience No of farmers percentage 1. <10 3 10 2. 11-20 11 36.67 3. 21-30 14 46.67 4. >30 2 6.67 Total = 30 100
  13. 16. Classification based on Land holding Sl. No Size of Land Holding (in ac) Number of Farmers Percentage 1. < 2.5 21 70.00 2. 2.51 – 5.0 7 23.33 3. 5.01 – 10 2 6.67 Total = 30 100
  14. 17. Mode of purchase Sl. No Mode of Purchase Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Cash 22 73.33 2. credit 2 6.67 3. Cash +Credit 6 20.00 Total= 30 100
  15. 18. <ul><li>Awareness about the product HIJACK among Farmers </li></ul>
  16. 19. Awareness about HIJACK SI.NO Awareness No of Farmers Percentage 1. Aware 11 36.67 2. Not Aware 19 63.33 Total= 30 100
  17. 20. Source of Information SI. No Source of Information Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Dealers 8 72.72 2. Peer group --- 0 3. Company Rep/Field Demo 2 18.18 4. Media/Advertisements 1 9.09 Total = 11 100
  18. 21. Users of product HIJACK SI. No Usage Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Users 7 23.33 2. Non-Users 23 76.67 Total = 30 100
  19. 22. Product identification By Farmers SI. No Mode of identification Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Packaging material 2 28.57 2. Company Name -- 0 3. Trade Name 5 71.43 Total = 7 100
  20. 23. RANK BASED QUOTIENT <ul><li>Formula </li></ul><ul><li>RBQ = </li></ul><ul><li>Fi = Frequency of the farmers for the i th rank of the attribute </li></ul><ul><li>N = Number of farmers contacted for factor identification </li></ul><ul><li>n = The maximum number of ranks given for various factors. </li></ul><ul><li>i = Rank of the attributes </li></ul><ul><li>The factors with highest RBQ score will be ranked first and hence considered the most important factor by the farmers. </li></ul>(Fi) ×(n+1-i) N × n ×100 ∑
  21. 24. Rank Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Dealers 0.71 0.25 - - - - - - - 96.00 Comp.Rep.guidance - 0.25 0.55 - - - - - - 80.00 Good quality - - - 0.095 - - - - - 0.90 Advertisement 0.28 0.38 0.13 - - - - - - 79.00 Friends guidance - - - - 0.079 - - - - 0.79 Brand loyalty - - - - - - - - - - Ease availability - - - - 0.16 - - - - 16.00 Low price - - - 0.19 - - - - - 19.00 Credit facility - - - - - - - - - -
  22. 25. Purchase influenced factors ranking Factors Rank Dealers 1 Company .Rep.guidance 2 Advertisement 3 Low price 4 Ease availability 5 Good quality 6 Friends guidance 7
  23. 26. Rank Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Not aware 0.82 - - - - - - - - 82 High price - - - - - - - - - 0 Satisfied with presently using product 0.13 0.35 0.17 - - - - - 65 Not available locally - 0.12 0.07 - 0.10 - - - - 29 Not available in time - - 0.07 0.09 - - - - - 16 Ineffective - - - - - - - - - 0 Dealers rec . other product - 0.43 0.4 - - - - - - 83 No credit facility 0.04 - - - - - - - - 4 Lack of guidance in Use - - - - - - - - - 0
  24. 27. Factors influencing ranked for non-purchase Factors Rank Dealer recommended other product 1 Not aware 2 Satisfied with presently using product 3 Not available locally 4 Not available in time 5 No credit facility 6
  25. 28. Farmers Perception about the product <ul><li>PERCEPTION </li></ul><ul><li>Perception is the process by which an individual selects, organizes and interprets information inputs to create a meaningful picture of the world. </li></ul><ul><li>- Kotler (2005) </li></ul>
  26. 29. Perception about the product SI.NO Perception Number of farmers Percentage 1. Fair 2 28.6 2. Some what better 4 57.1 3. Same like others 1 14.3 4. Poor - - Total = 7 100
  27. 30. Perceptual Mapping Analysis price low High low High Credit facility HIJACK ATTRATAP ROUNDUP
  28. 31. Expectation of Farmers <ul><li>EXPECTATION </li></ul><ul><li>Customer expectations are based on customers’ knowledge and experience. </li></ul><ul><li> - Levy and Weitz (2004) </li></ul>
  29. 32. Expectation of Farmers SI. No Expectation Number of farmers Percentage 1 Making available in time 3 42.9 2 Reducing price comparatively 1 14.3 3 Educating the Dealers - 0.0 4 Reducing the toxicity 2 28.6 Total = 7 100
  30. 33. <ul><li>FINDINGS& SUGGESTIONS </li></ul>
  31. 34. Findings <ul><li>Dealers plays major role in Sales of particular brand </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness about the product is considerably less </li></ul><ul><li>Product performance from farmers opinion is fair </li></ul><ul><li>Mostly large farmers only getting product on credit </li></ul><ul><li>Product accessibility also plays major role </li></ul>
  32. 35. Suggestions <ul><li>Product promotion by Credit facility to dealers and fixing incentives to dealers </li></ul><ul><li>Creating awareness about the product among farmers through Field trails & demonstrations </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing product accessibility by making available of product timely in local dealers also </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce toxic level to crops </li></ul>
  33. 36. <ul><li>Reference </li></ul><ul><li>Kotler Philip(2005), “Marketing Management” , Prentice – Hall of India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, p.13,19. </li></ul><ul><li>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.learnmarketing.net/perceptualmaps.htm </li></ul><ul><li>http://www1.sapdesignguild.org/resources/optical_illusions/intro_definition.htm </li></ul>

×