Case study on Kitchenette
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Case study on Kitchenette

on

  • 45 views

Problem formulation, problem indentification of Kitchenette case study. www.unitedworld.edu.in

Problem formulation, problem indentification of Kitchenette case study. www.unitedworld.edu.in

Statistics

Views

Total Views
45
Views on SlideShare
45
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Case study on Kitchenette Case study on Kitchenette Presentation Transcript

  • KITCHENETTE CASELET PRESENTED BY : ALOK KUMAR CHANDRAKANT EZONG JINIA BISWAS NAYAN SAHA PANKAJ AGARWAL POUSALI MUKHERJEE PRETAM LAHA RAJESWARI SAHU SRIPARNA CHAKROBORTY
  •  MBIL did not carry out a thorough research in the Indian market.  A hypothesis testing should have been carried out to check whether the Kitchenette product would work or not across India.  Competition from makers of aluminium and steel containers should have been assessed.  Who were the major decision makers in a typical Indian family in general?  “Potential” of the tin containers to do well vis-à-vis competion , not measured.
  •  Beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of Indian, urban ladies were not researched on.  Parameters like income, spending habits, buying pattern and lifestyle were different in Western and Northern India compared to Eastern and Southern India.  Unequal distribution of income in India, making the Kitchenette products a failure in Eastern and Southern parts of India  Analysis of all the parameters of PESTLE concept not done, technological or environmental issue(hygiene) involved.  An initial focus group interview across the targeted cities could have reflected ,- product quality acceptability, price acceptability and place availability.  No customer-level interaction was done to assess customer reactions.
  •  Conceptualisation followed by hypothesis testing and proper research methodologies were necessary to launch expensive tin containers in India.  No research instruments used  Launching efforts were clearly based on assumptions that Kitchenette has to do well in India too.  The Indian market was thought to be homogeneous throughout.  Citywise, percentage and number of ladies going out to work was much lesser in Eastern, Central and Southern parts of India compared to Northern and Western parts of India.  Indian consumers not very happy with the texture of the containers(Feel sensory organ) and preferred aluminium, steel or containers that came free with packaged food in containers.
  •  City-wise data collection, recording, analysis, interpretation and report preparing were not done  Short, pilot studies not done  Degree of satisfaction vs expectation not measured  Who are the consumers(educated ladies) who took pride in keeping their kitchens clean  Purchasing power and purchasing attitude, city-wise not assessed.
  •  Responses on product quality, price acceptability, easy availability, level of awareness(interest), quality of backup servicing(process) and most importantly, retailer-level customer interaction measured through Customer Satisfaction Index(PKG Parameter) not measured through market survey(Descriptive survey).
  • http://www.unitedworld.edu.in/ Campus Ahmedabad Campus: Karnavati Knowledge Village, A/907,Uvarsad, S.G.Highway, Gandhinagar Kolkata Campus: Infinity Benchmark Tower 10th Floor, Plot - G1, Block - EP& GP, Sec - V, Salt Lake, Kolkata. Reg. Office: 407, Zodiac Square, 4th Floor Opp. Gurudwara, S.G. Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad.