A study on brand awareness brand perception of fertilizers in fact

1
A STUDY ON BRAND AWARENESS BRAND PERCEPTION OF FERILIZERS IN
FACT, ERNAKULAM MAINLY CONCENTRATING IN ELOOR AND
MUVATTUPUZHA Dist.
Submitted By
SANDHYA JOHN
Reg No: 1535F0351
Under the Guidance of
Ms G.Jeya Devi,MBA.,
ASSISSTANT PROFESSOR
Submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of
DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Bharathiar University, Coimbatore – 641046.
NEHRU COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT
(Affiliated to Bharathiar University, ISO 9001:2000 certified
And Approved by AICTE) Coimbatore – 64110
2015-2017

3
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project report entitled “A STUDY ON BRAND
AWARENESS BRAND PERCEPTION OF FERILIZERS IN FACT,
ERNAKULAM MAINLY CONCENTRATING IN ELOOR AND
MUVATTUPUZHA Dist.” submitted to the Bharathiar university in partial
fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree of “Master of Business
Administration” is a record of original research work done by SANDHYA JOHN
(Reg:1535F0351) during the period of 45 days of his study in Nehru College of
Management ,Coimbatore under my supervision and guidance and it has not formed
the basis for the award of any Degree/Diploma/Associate Fellowship or other similar
title to any candidate in any university.
Faculty Guide Principal
Viva Voce held on---------------
Internal Examiner External Examiner

5
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the project entitled “A STUDY ON BRAND AWARENESS BRAND
PERCEPTION OF FERILIZERS IN FACT, ERNAKULAM MAINLY
CONCENTRATING IN ELOOR AND MUVATTUPUZHA Dist.” submitted to the Bharathiar
University in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree of “Master of
Business Administration” is a record of original research work done by me during the academic
period 2015-2017 under the guidance of Ms. G. JEYA DEVI, assistant professor in MBA and it
has not formed the basis for the award of any Degree/Diploma/Associated ship/Fellowship or other
similar title to any candidate in any university.
Place: Coimbatore SANDHYA JOHN
Date: (Reg:No:- 1535F0351)

7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project wouldn’t have been completed without the support and help of several persons. I
express my sincere thanks and gratitude to all of them.
I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr.P.KRISHNA KUMAR, CEO and Secretary,
Nehru College of Management for his encouragement and help through the course.
I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. FRANKLIN JOHN Principal, Nehru College of
Management for his encouragement and help through the course.
I acknowledge my deep sense of gratitude to my guide Ms.G.JEYA DEVI, faculty guide for the
valuable guidance, constant encouragement and creative suggestions offered during the course of
this project and also in preparing this report.
I also wish to record my gratitude to my family, relatives and friends for their immense help and
support extended to me during various phases of this project.
Above all I thank God almighty for his unseen hand ever present in directing me for the fruitful
culmination of my endeavors.
SANDHYA JOHN
(Reg:No:1535F0351)

9
CONTENTS
SL NO TITLE Page No
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BRAND RECOGNITION 2
1.2 COMPANY PROFILE 3
1.2.1 FERTIIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. (FACT) 3
1.2.2 PETROCHEMICAL PLANTS 5
1.2.3 COCHIN DIVISION 5
1.2.4 FACT ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ORGANISATION (FEDO) 6
1.3 INDUSTRY PROFILE 7
1.3.1 FACT ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ORGANIZATION (FEDO) 10
1.3.2 FACT ENGINEERING WORKS 11
1.3.3 MARKETING DIVISION 11
1.4 OBJECTIVES 14
1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 14
2 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITRATURE
2.1 BRAND 15
2.2 BRAND EQUITY 15
3 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION 25
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 24
3.3 DATA SOURCES AND DATA COLLECTION METHOD 25
3.4 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 26
3.4.1 TARGET POPULATION 26
3.4.2 SAMPLING METHOD 26
3.4.3 SAMPLE SIZE 26
3.4.4 STATISTICAL TOOLS 27
3.4.5 SOFTWARE FOR ANALYSIS 27
4 CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS 29-40

10
4.2 CROSS TABULATION ANALYSIS 41-56
4.3 CHI-SQUARE TESTS 57-65
5 CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS, SUGGESSTIONS & CONCLUSION
5.1 FINDINGS 67
5.2 SUGGESTIONS 68
5.3 CONCLUSION 69
BIBLIOGRAPHY 71
ANNEXURE 79

12
List of Tables
Table no Title Page
no
4.1 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS 28
4.1.1 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON RESPONDENTS' AGE 28
4.1.2 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON RESPONDENTS'
GENDER
29
4.1.3 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON ANNUAL INCOME OF
RESPONDENTS
30
4.1.4 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF FAMILY OF
RESPONDENTS
31
4.1.5 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF LAND OF
RESPONDENTS
32
4.1.6 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON FARMING EXPERIENCE
OF RESPONDENTS
33
4.1.7 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF IRRIGATION
OF RESPONDENTS
34
4.1.8 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF FERTILIZERS
OF RESPONDENTS
35
4.1.9 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON USAGE OF FACT
FERTILIZERS OF RESPONDENTS
36
4.1.10 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON LOYAL CUSTOMERS
OF FACT OF RESPONDENTS
37
4.1.11 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON KNOWLEDGE OF FACT
AND FACT PRODUCTS OF RESPONDENTS
38
4.1.12 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF FERTILIZER
OF FACT OF RESPONDENTS
40
4.2 CROSSTAB ANALYSIS 41
4.2.1 AGE AND WHO INFLUENCE TO YOU IN YOUR PURCHASE
DECISION CROSSTABULATION
41
4.2.3 AGE AND PRICE SENSITIVE CUSTOMER
CROSSTABULATION
43

13
4.2.4 AGE AND HOW MUCH PRICE SPENT ON FERTILIZERS
CROSSTABULATION
44
4.2.5 AGE AND I PREFER FACT FERTILIZER BECAUSE I GET
GOOD QUALITY CROSSTABULATION
45
4.2.6 AGE AND I USE FACT FERTILIZER BECAUSE FOR BEST
PRODUCTION CROSSTABULATION
47
4.2.7 AGE AND REGULAR USE OF FACT FERTILIZER INCREASES
LAND FERTILITY CROSSTABULATION
49
4.2.8 AGE AND THE PRICE OF FACT FERTILIZER IS CONVENIENT
FOR ME CROSSTABULATION
51
4.2.9 AGE AND PROFIT MARGIN CHARGE BY FACT IS
REASONABLE CROSSTABULATION
53
4.2.10 AGE AND I AM SATISFIED WITH THE PACKAGING STYLE
CROSSTABULATION
55
4.3 CHI SQUARE TESTS 57
4.3.1 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND
AVAILABILITY OF FERTILIZERS WHEN NEEDED
57
4.3.2 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND SCHEMES
PROVIDED FACT IS GOOD
58
4.3.3 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND I SUGGEST
MY FRIENDS, AND RELATIVE TO USE FERTILIZER
59
4.3.4 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME ON I LIKE THE
FEATURES OF FACT FERTILIZER
60
4.3.5 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND I AM
SATISFIED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS
61
4.3.6 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND I AM
SATISFIED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS
62
4.3.7 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND FACT
FERTILIZER IS OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT THAN OTHERS
63

14
4.3.8 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND I CONSIDER
MYSELF AS LOYAL TO THIS BRAND
64
4.3.9 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND RATE
PERFORMANCE OF FACT WITH OTHER BRANDS
65

16
List of Figures
Table
no
Title Page
no
4.1.1 PIE CHART OF SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF AGE OF
THE RESPONDENTS
28
4.1.2 PIE CHART OF SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF GENDER
OF THE RESPONDENTS
29
4.1.3 PIE CHART OF SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL
INCOME OF THE RESPONDENTS
30
4.1.4 PIE CHART OF SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF TYPE OF
FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENTS
31
4.1.5 BAR CHART OF SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF TYPE OF
LAND OF THE RESPONDENTS
32
4.1.6 BAR CHART OF SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF
FARMING EXPERIENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS
33
IRRIGATION METHOD OF THE RESPONDENTS
34
FERTILIZERS OF THE RESPONDENTS
35
4.1.9 BAR CHART OF SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF USAGE
OF FACT FERTILIZERS OF THE RESPONDENTS
35
4.1.10 BAR CHART OF SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF LOYAL
CUSTOMERS OF FACT OF THE RESPONDENTS
37
KNOWLEDGE OF FACT AND FACT PRODUCTS OF THE
RESPONDENTS
40
FERTILIZERS OF FACT OF THE RESPONDENTS
40
4.2.1 AGE AND WHO INFLUENCE TO YOU IN YOUR PURCHASE
DECISION CROSSTABULATION
41
4.2.3 AGE AND PRICE SENSITIVE CUSTOMER
CROSSTABULATION
43
4.2.4 BAR CHART OF AGE AND PRICE SENSITIVE CUSTOMER
CROSSTABULATION
44

17
4.2.5 BAR CHART OF AGE AND I PREFER FACT FERTILIZER
BECAUSE I GET GOOD QUALITY CROSSTABULATION
45
4.2.6 BAR CHART OF AGE AND I USE FACT FERTILIZER BECAUSE
FOR BEST PRODUCTION CROSSTABULATION
47
4.2.7 BAR CHART OF AGE AND REGULAR USE OF FACT
FERTILIZER INCREASES LAND FERTILITY
CROSSTABULATION
49
4.2.8 BAR CHART OF AGE AND THE PRICE OF FACT FERTILIZER
IS CONVENIENT FOR ME CROSSTABULATION
51
4.2.9 BAR CHART OF AGE AND PROFIT MARGIN CHARGE BY
FACT IS REASONABLE CROSSTABULATION
53
4.2.10 BAR CHART OF AGE AND I AM SATISFIED WITH THE
PACKAGING STYLE CROSSTABULATION
55

19
1. INTRODUCTION
Brand awareness measures the accessibility of the brand in memory. Brand awareness can
be measured through brand recall or brand recognition. Brand recall reflects the ability of
consumers to retrieve the brand from memory when given the product category, the needs fulfilled
by the category, or some other type of probe as a cue.
1.1 BRAND RECOGNITION
Brand recognition reflects the ability of consumers to confirm prior exposure to the brand
(i.e., recognize that it is an “old” brand that they have seen before and not a “new” brand that they
are seeing for the first time). In a recognition task, consumers see a stimulus (e.g., an ad for the
brand, a brand name) and must say whether they have seen it before (e.g., last night on television,
in magazine X, etc.).
It is important to make the task as realistic as possible by allowing only a short amount of
time to answer the recognition question and by using realistic stimuli and context. If you want to
use recognition as a measure of the performance of different marketing decisions (say, different
logos or ads), you should expose one group to one version of the target stimulus and another group
to the other version of the target stimulus. However, to make the task more realistic, both groups
should also be exposed to other stimuli (e.g., competitors' brands). In a second step, people see the
“old” stimuli again, along with completely new ones, and are asked to decide if each stimulus is
“old” or “new” (i.e., if they have seen them before or not).
To correct for people’s tendency to guess (to say that they recognize when in fact they are
uncertain), you can compute a recognition score called d prime, as follows: d' = HR – FA, where
HR is the hit rate (the percentage of respondents who correctly recognize the target stimulus) and
FA is the false alarm rate (the percentage of respondents who incorrectly “recognize” a “new”
stimulus, i.e., a stimulus not shown before).
Brand value is the financial value of the brand, i.e., the net present value of the financial
benefits derived from the brand. Brand value is a function of the brand’s equity, of course, but also
of the brand’s sales. For example, although Rolls-Royce has a higher brand equity than

20
Bentley (people would prefer the same car with an RR logo than with a Bentley logo), its sales are
so much lower than Bentley’s sales (and must remain so to retain the brand’s exclusivity) that, in
the end, Interbrand estimated that the value of the Rolls-Royce brand is lower than the value of the
Bentley brand.
The ability to value and put a price tag on a brand’s value may be useful for a number of
reasons, including mergers and acquisitions, brand licensing, fund-raising and brand management
decisions. As noted by Kapferer (1997), it can also be useful to include the brand value on the
balance sheet to determine
(1) the value of liquidity in case of a forced sale,
(2) the book value for company accounts,
(3) the value needed in order to encourage banks to lend the company money, (4) the value of
losses or damage to the worth of the brand,
(5) the amount of a licensing agreement,
(6) the value for the partial sale of assets, and
(7) the value in case of a takeover or of a merger and acquisition.

21
1.2 COMPANY PROFILE
1.2.1 FERTIIZERS AND CHEMICALS
TRAVANCORE LTD. (FACT)
FACT, India’s first large scale fertilizer unit
was set up in 1943 by Maharajah Sree Chithira
Tthirunal Balarama Varma. In 1947, FACT
Udyogamanndal started production of Ammonium
Sulphate with an installed capacity of 10,000 MT
Nitrogen. FACT became a Kerala State Public Sector Enterprise on 15th
August 1960 and on 21st
November 1962; the Government of India became the major shareholder. The second stage of
FACT was completed in 1962 and the third stage of expansion of FACT was completed in 1965
with setting up of a new Ammonium Sulphate Plant. The company has two production units –
Udyogamandal Division (UD) and Cochin Division (CD). The Caprolactam plant was
commissioned in 1990.
FACT Engineering works (FEW) was set up on 24th
July 1965 to meet the emerging need
for indigenous capabilities in vital areas of engineering, design and consultancy for establishing
large and modern fertilizer plants. FEDO has since then diversified into chemicals, petrochemicals,
hydrometallurgy, pharmaceutical and other areas. FEDO offers services from project identification
and evaluation stage to plant design, procurement, project management, site supervision and
commissioning of new plants as well as revamping and modernization of old plants.
FACT Engineering works (FEW) was established on 13th
April 1966 as a unit to fabricate
and install equipments for fertilizer plants.Over the years, FEW developed capabilities in the
fabrication of pressure vessels and heat exchangers. FEW has also undertaken laying of cross
county piping and fabrication and installation of large penstocks of hydel projects.

22
The Cochin Division of FACT, the second production unit was set up at Ambalamedu and
the first phase was commissioned in 1973. The secomd phase ot FACT Cochin Division was
commissioned in 1976. As a part of diversification plan from the traditional field of fertilizers and
chemicals, 50000 Tonnes per Annum (TPA) caprolactam plant at Udyogamandal was
commissioned in 1990.FACT set up 900 Tonnes per day (TPD) ammonia plant in Udyogamandal
at a cost of Rs.638 crores following an order of the High Court of Kerala in February 1994 on a
public interest Litigation, to decommission the existing imported Ammonia storage and handling
facility at Willington Island (Cochin port). The ammonia plant was commissioned in 1998. The
company’s main business is manufacture and marketing of (a) fertilizers (b) Caprolactam and
engineering consultancy and fabrication of equipment.
1.2.2 PETROCHEMICAL PLANTS
FACT manufacturers Caprolactam, the raw material for Nylon-6 which is exactly used for
production of tyre-cord, textile filament yarn and engineering plastics. FACT, one of the only two
manufacturers of this product in India, has the capacity produce 50000 tonnes or Caprolactam in
a year. FACT’s Caprolactam exported to various countries including USA, not only earns precious
foreign exchange, but also appreciation on account of its excellent quality. The Caprolactam Plant
also produces 225000 tonnes of ammonium sulphate per annum as co-product and small quantites
of soda ash and nitric acid as by-products. The plant has been certified ISO 9001:2002 since April
1996 by RWTUV (Rheinisch Westfalischer Technischer Uberwachungs Verein ), Germany and
ISO-14001 since December 1999 by DNV (Det Norske Vertas), Netherlands.
1.2.3 COCHIN DIVISION
FACT Cochin Division was set up in the 1970s at Ambalamedu 30 km from
Udyogamandal and adjacent to the Cochin Refineries. The factory site is well connected by rail,
road and waterways which facilitate easy movement of raw materials and products. The present
production facility includes manufacture of 4,85,000 TPA of complex fertilizer (FACTAMFOS
20;20;0;13 ),3,30,000 TPA of sulphuric acid and 1,15,200 TPA phosphoric acid. The complex has
a well-designed effluent treatment and waste water recycle system. There is facility to import and

23
store raw materials required for FACT at Willington Island plant. The facility includes ship
unloading system and storage for raw materials like sulphur, rock phosphate and ammonia. Cochin
Division is an ISO 14001: 2004 certified company for environment management system by M/S.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and ISO 9000:2008 certified organization for manufacture of complex
fertilizer by M/SRWTUV.
1.2.4 FACT ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ORGANISATION (FEDO)
Established in 1965, FEDO has been evolved into an engineering power house with
capability that encompasses every facet of project engineering and management. Maintaining
international standard in design practices, exposed to state-of-the-art professional values, safety
and environmental protection, FEDO’s expertise ranges from pre-project surveys, project
implementation leading to project commissioning and plant operation, in diversified fields of
operation. FEDO has, over the years, acquired the technological edge for the production of
ammonia, suphuric acid, phosphoric acid, hydrogen, fertilizers like urea, ammonium sulphate,
single super phosphate, ammonium chloride, complex fertilizers, etc. The expertise in the field of
petrochemical industry has been proven internationally by successful commissioning of complex
projects like Caprolactam, methanol, etc. In the refinery sector also, FEDO is not a name to be
bypassed by the oil industries of the oil industries of the country and in the gulf.

24
1.3 INDUSTRY PROFILE
The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (or FACT Ltd), a fertiliser and chemical
manufacturing company in Kochi, Kerala, India, was incorporated in 1943, by Maharajah Sree
Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma. It is the first fertiliser manufacturing company in independent
India and also the largest Central public Sector Undertaking (CPSU) in the State of Kerala.
The company has 2 production units - Udyogamandal Complex (UC) at Eloor,
Udyogamandal, and Cochin Division (CD)at Ambalamedu. In 1947 FACT started production of
ammonium sulphate with an installed capacity of 50,000 MT per annum at Udyogamandal near
Cochin. The Caprolactam plant in Udyogamandal was commissioned in 1990. Main products of
the company include Ammonia, Sulphuric Acid, Ammonium Phosphate-Sulphate
(FACTAMFOS), Ammonium Sulphate, Zincated Ammonium Phosphate, Caprolactam, and also
complex fertilizers. Gypsum, Nitric acid, Soda Ash and coloured Ammonium Sulphate are major
by-products.
The factory commenced production of ammonium sulphate in 1947 at the dawn of Indian
independence using wood as the raw material for production of ammonia. With the effect of time,
wood gasification became uneconomic and was replaced with naphtha reforming process.Through
a series of expansion programmes, FACT soon became the producer of the widest range of
fertilizers suited for all crops and all soil types in India.It became a Kerala State public sector
enterprise in 1960 and in 1962,it came under the Government of India. Diversification to full-
fledged engineering services(FEW)in the fertilizer field and allied areas followed. The next major
step forward was the diversification of petrochemicals,an important milestone in the growth of the
company.
FACT has formed a Joint Venture Company with Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers
Limited, named FRBL (FACT RCF Building Products Ltd) for manufacturing load bearing panels
and other building products using phosphogypsum.FRBL PREFAB RAPIDWALL is a
revolutionary, low cost, pre-fabricated, load bearing cellular walling product suitable for use in
residential, commercial, and industrial building construction.
FACT a Government of India Enterprise has business interests in manufacturing and
marketing of fertilizers, caprolactam, engineering consultancy and fabrication of equipments.

25
Units of FACT include the two manufacturing divisions Udyogamandal Complex-UC and Cochin
Division-CD, the consultancy unit FACT Engineering and Design Organization-FEDO, the
fabrication division FACT Engineering Works-FEW and the Marketing Division. The Company
has also interests in petrochemicals, hydrometallurgy,chemicals and pharmaceuticals.
Agriculture has always been the mainstay of our people and we have been tilling the land
and reaping the harvests for hundreds of years. This naturally found us in a situation where the
land was becoming les and les bountiful. The yield was getting lower and lower and in the early
half of 20th
century we found we had to depend on imports to meet out minimum food grain
requirement. The simple truth that land had been losing its fertility through long years of repeated
cultivation dawned on us much too late. What we were putting back in the form of organic manure
was hardly adequate to replenish the soil or to correct the imbalance on the fertility status of the
land under cultivation. Advanced countries elsewhere has discovered the answer to this problem
in chemical fertilisers and some of the large scale farming entrepreneurs like foreign owned
plantations in India also were importing chemical fertilisers for their own use.
The Second World War which cut off traditional sources of import of food grains
aggravated our problem and the famine conditions that prevailed in some parts of the country made
us sit up and think. Chemical fertiliser was the answer, but we did not have the technical know-
how, raw materials or the resources for setting up fertiliser plants. It was then that a daring and
farsighted administrator of Travancore (Kerala), Dr. C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer, had overcome the
obstacles and paved the way for setting up a chemical fertiliser factory, in a till then unheard village
in Kerala with what little resource that was available then and adopting technology and raw
materials that could be mustered up. The immediate objective was to grow more food using the
wonder replenisher, chemical fertilisers. This was how FACT came to be founded in what is now
known as Udyogamandal, on the banks of river Periyar in 1944. It was then the first large scale
fertiliser factory in the entire country.
FACT has at present manufacturing divisions at two locations in Cochin, producing
Complex Fertilisers, Ammonium Sulphate and also Petrochemical product Caprolactm, which is
used in Nylon manufacture.

26
Besides the three manufacturing units, it has also a consultancy division, FACT
Engineering and Design organisation (FEDO) and a fabrication division FACT Engineering Works
(FEW), both located in Cochin itself.
FACT's well equipped R&D centre has advanced facilities with pilot plants, modern
equipment and accessories. The centre is backed by a team of highly motivated research scientists.
A 150 TPA Bio-fertiliser plant is set up at R&D Centre.
The marketing network of FACT is spread over the southern states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
Pondichery, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The distribution network consists of Agro Service
Centres, Field Storage Points and Retail selling points in these states and serves the farmers by
supply of fertilisers and agronomy advice.
FACT & RCF, Mumbai have formed a joint venture company under the name of FACT-
RCF Building Products Limited. The Company has set up a unit at Kochi for the manufacture of
Gypsum based wall panel and building materials.
FACT Udyogamandal Plant, the oldest of FACT, which started production of Ammonium
Sulphate in 1947 using the firewood gasification process, has during the last few decades
undergone several stages of expansion and diversification, giving up old and obsolete technology
and installing new and sophisticated plants making use of naphtha as raw material. Today, the
Udyogamandal Plants has an installed capacity of 76,050 tonnes of N and 29700 tonnes of
P2O5. Apart from fertilisers like Ammonium Sulphate and Ammonium Phosphate Sulphate
(FACTAMFOS 20:20:0:13) FACT Udyogamandal Plants also manufactures chemicals as
intermediate products like Sulphuric Acid, Anhydrous Ammonia, Phosphoric Acid, Sulphur
Dioxide, Oleum, etc.
Ammonium Sulphate liquor obtained as a by product from the Caprolactam Plant is
converted as a useful fertiliser product in a New Ammonium Sulphate Plant, 2,25,000 TPA
capacity put up in October 1990, at a cost of Rs.35 crore.
As a replacement to the existing high energy consuming old Ammonia plants at
Udyogamandal, a new 900 TPD capacity Ammonia Plant at a cost of Rs.642 crore was put up in
March 1998. FACT Udyogamandal plants received ISO 14001 certification in March 2000 for
conforming to the Environmental Management System standard.

27
FACT manufactures Caprolactam, the raw material for Nylon-6 which is extensively used
for the production of tyre-cord, textile filament yarn and engineering plastics.
FACT, one of the only two manufactures of this product in India, has the capacity to
produce 50,000 tonnes of Caprolactam in a year. FACT's Caprolactam exported to various
countries including in USA, not only earns precious foreign exchange, but also appreciation on
account of its excellent quality.
The Caprolactam Plant also produces 2,25,000 tonnes of Ammonium Sulphate per year as
co-product and small quantities of Soda Ash and Nitric Acid as by products. The plant has been
certified ISO 9001:2002 since April 1996 by RWTUV, Germany and ISO-14001 since December
1999 by DNV, Netherlands.
FACT Cochin Division has set up in the 1970's at Ambalamedu 30 km from Udyogamandal
and adjacent to the Cochin Refineries. The factory site is well connected by rail, road and
waterways which facilitate easy movement of raw materials and products. The present production
facility includes manufacture of 4,85,000 TPA of Complex Fertiliser (FACTAMFOS 20:20:0:13),
3,30,000 TPA of Sulphuric Acid and 1,15,200 TPA Phosphoric Acid. The Complex has a well
designed effluent treatment and waste water recycle system. There is facility to import and store
raw materials required for FACT at Willingdon Island installation. The facility includes ship
unloading system and storage for raw materials like Sulphur, Rock Phosphate and Ammonia.
Cochin Division is an ISO 14001:2004 certified company for Environment Management
System by M/s DNV and ISO 9001:2008 certified organisation for manufacture of complex
fertiliser by M/s TUV.
1.3.1 FACT ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ORGANIZATION (FEDO)
Established in 1965, FEDO has been evolved into an
Engineering Power House with capability that encompasses every
facet of Project Engineering and Management. Maintaining
international standard in design practices, exposed to state-of-the-
art professional values, safety and environmental protection,

28
FEDO's expertise ranges from pre-project surveys, project implementation leading to project
commissioning and plant operation, in diversified fields of operation.
FEDO has, over the years, acquired the technological edge for the production of Ammonia,
Sulphuric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Hydrogen, Fertilisers like Urea, Ammonium Sulphate, Single
Super Phosphate, Ammonium Chloride, Complex Fertilisers, etc. The expertise in the field of
Petrochemical industry has been proven internationally by successful commissioning of complex
projects like Caprolactam, Methanol, etc. In the Refinery sector also FEDO in not a name to be
bypassed like the oil industry players of the Country and in Gulf.
FEDO has been in technical association with world-renowned consultants and technology
suppliers like Haldor Topsoe (Denmark), Kellog Brown Root (USA), Stamicarbon (Netherland),
BASF (GermanY), Lurgi/Monsanto (France), Toyo Engineering Corporation (Japan) Outokumpu
(Finland), Coppee Lavalin (Belgium), Technimont (Italy), etc.
In June 1995, FEDO became the first Engineering Consultancy Organisation in India to be
awarded ISO 9001:1994 certification for quality standards of our systems relating to the various
aspects of engineering and execution of projects. The above certification comes from Det Norske
Veritas Quality Assurance Ltd, United Kingdom.
1.3.2 FACT ENGINEERING WORKS
FACT Engineering Works (FEW), the Fabrication and
Engineering Division of FACT was established in the year
1966. FEW is one of the leading contracting firms in the Country
offering services through the manufacturing wing with modern
fabrication and testing facilities and the project wing undertaking
project construction works. To expand its shop activities, FEW acquired the assets of M/s
Giovanola Binny at Palluruthy, Cochin and is operating at Palluruthy from February 1989
onwards.

29
Present range of equipment fabricated by FEW include items like Class I Pressure Vessels,
Heat Exchangers in Carbon Steel, Alloy Steel and Stainless Steel, Chemical Process Equipments,
Penstock Pipes, Coloumns, Towers, etc. Since 2006 FEW has also been producing ship building
components such as Hatch Covers, Bulk Storage Tanks, Spud Pipes, Crane Posts, Hull Blocks,
etc.
Project wing of FEW undertakes design engineering fabrication and erection of plant
piping & off-site piping for process industries; design, fabrication and erection of large sixe
Storage Tanks including Ammonia Storage Tanks, Vessels and other items for process industries;
laying of cross country pipelines for water supply schemes/oil terminals on turnkey basis.The
quality system of Manufacturing Wing as well as Project Wing has been certified to ISO 9001
since 1998.
1.3.3 MARKETING DIVISION
FACT has been a pacesetter in fertilizer marketing. The marketing network of FACT is
spread over the southern states of Kerala, Tamilnadu, Pondichery, Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh. The distribution network consists of 100 Agro Service Centres, 50 field storage points
and over 7900 retail selling points in these states, and serves the farmers by supply of fertilizers
and agronomy advice. Through innovative farmer education and fertilizer promotion programmes,
FACT has created awareness about scientific cultivation and fertilizer use.
1.3.3.1FACT-RCF Building Products
FACT-RCF BUILDING PRODUCTS LIMITED is a Joint Venture Undertaking of
The Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited, Udyogamandal Kerala and Rashtriya
Chemicals and Fertilisers, Mumbai
Both above are Public Sector Undertakings manufacturing chemical fertlisers.Gypsum is a
by product of fertilizer manufacturing.

30
Rapid Building Systems Pty Ltd., Australia who is the world leader in making large size
load bearing building panels from Gypsumis the technology provider for the venture.
1.3.3.2 FRBL Prefab GYPWALL is a single panel walling system developed with the technical
knowhow from Rapid Building Systems (RBS), Australia. Ready made smooth finish load bearing
wall panels are made out of Gypsum and High Strength Glass fiber.
1.3.3.3 GYPWALL panels are strong as well as light and can be used as wall or roof panels as
required. The technology has world wide acceptance and has been approved by Building Material
technology Promotion council (BMPTC) India.
1.3.3.4 SHINE Wall putty and SILKY Wall Plaster produced by FRBL through a unique process
from Gypsum are charactersitic by their extra smooth finish and ease of application.

31
1.4 OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the brand awareness of FACT among Customers in Eloor District, Ernakulam
2. To study the customer perception on FACT fertilizers.
3. To analyse customer satisfaction on the quality and other specifications of the product.
4. To analyse how packaging of fertilizers influence customers choice.
5. To analyse the pricing strategy and the pricing policy framed.
6. To determine the demand for the fertilizers in the market.
1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
 Many people were not ready to disclose the private matters.
 Lack of knowledge about technical terms.
 There is no proper awareness of brand awareness.
 Personal bias of respondents may be affecting the outcome of information.
 Many of them were rejecting my request for filing the questionnaire.
 Time barrier

32
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITRATURE

33
2. REVIEW OF LITRATURE
Review of literature shows the previous studies carried out by the researcher in this field.
Previous studies are reviewed in order to gain insight into the extent of research. The research
problem can be more understood and made specific referring to theories, reports, record and other
information made in similar studies. This will provide the researcher with the knowledge on what
lines the study should proceed the serves to narrow the problem. The main objective of the study
is to measure Brand Awareness of FACT fertilizers among the people and reviews are follows:
2.1 BRAND
1
Kotler, 2000. A traditional definition of a brand was: “the name with one or more items in the
product line, that is used to identify the sources of character of the item(s).”
The American Marketing Association (AMA) definition of a brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol,
or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or
group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors.
2.3 BRAND EQUITY
2
Rooney, 1995 defines brand equity as a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand’s name and
symbol that adds to or subtracts from value provided by a product or service to a customer.
However, many factors can be attributed to the value of the brand; for example, awareness, recall
and recognition. Brand equity is a differentiating factor that can influence consumers’ response to
brand’s marketing activities.MThere have been different perspectives or considering brand equity;
the customer-based perspectives, the financial perspectives and combined perspectives.
1
Kotler, (2000) “Marketing Management”. The Millennium Edition, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.
2
Rooney, J.A. (1995), “Branding: a trend for today and tomorrow”, Journal of product and management. 4(4) 48-
55.

34
3
Farquhar, 1991. The first perspective of brand equity is from a financial market’s point of view
where the asset value of a brand is appraised.
4
Keller, 1993. Customer-based brand equity is evaluating the consumer’s response to abrand
name.
5
Aaker (1991) defines Brand equity as the value that customers associate with a brand. It is the
consumers’ perception of the overall superiority of a product carrying that brand name when
compared to other brands. Brand equity refers to consumers’ perception rather than any objective
indicators.
6
Aaker (1991) defines brand or name awareness as “the ability of a potential buyer to recognize
or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category.” Therefore it is important that a
link between product class and brand d implicated because the scope of brand awareness is very
wide, ranging from an unsure sensation that the brand name is recognized, to a conviction that it
is the only one in the product class. Brand awareness to the strength of a brand’s presence in the
consumer’s mind.
7
Aaker (1996). For new or niche brands, recognition can be important. For well-known brands
recall and top-of-mind are more sensitive and meaningful. Brand knowledge and brand opinion
can be used in part to enhance the measurement of brand recall.
8
Kotler and Keller (2006). ) A Brand association is the most accepted aspect of brand equity. Associations
represent the basis for purchase decision and for brand loyalty. Brand association consist of all brand-related
thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, experiences, beliefs, attitudes and is anything linked in memory to
a brand.
3
Farquhar, (1991), “Recognizing and Measuring Brand Assets”, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA
4
Keller KL. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing
57(1):1-22.
5
Aaker (1991), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management Rev,38(spring):57-
62.
6
Aaker (1991), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management Rev,38(spring): 57-
62
7
Aaaker (1996) ), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management Rev,38(spring):
120-120
8
Kotler, Philip and Keller Kevin L. (2006), “Marketing Management”, 12th
edition.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

35
9
De Chernatony and McWilliam, 1989. Product associations include functional attribute
associations and non-functional associations. Functional attributes are the tangible features of a
product.
10
Pitta and Katsanis, 1995. While evaluating a brand, consumers link the performance of the
functional attributes to the brand. If a brand does not perform the functions for which it is designed,
the brand will has low level of brand equity. Performance is defined as a consumer’s judgment
about a brand’s fault-free and long-lasting physical operation and flawlessness in the product’s
physical construction.
11
Farquhar & Herr 1993. Non-functional attributes include symbolic attributes which are the
intangible features that meet consumer’s needs for social approval, personal expression or self-
esteem consumers linked social image of a brand, trustworthiness, perceived value, differentiation
and country of origin to a brand.
12
Lassar (1995) limit the reference of the image dimension to the social dimension, calling it social
image as social image contributes more to brand equity. Social image is defined as the consumer’s
perception of the esteem in which the consumer’s social group holds the brand. It includes the
attributions a consumer makes and a consumer thinks that others make to the typical user of the
brand.
13
Feldwik (1996). Value appeared in several brand equity models defne perceived value as the
perceived brand utility relative to its costs, assessed by the consumer and based on simultaneous
considerations of what is received and what is given up to receive it.
9
De Chernatony, L. & McWilliam G. 1989), “The varying nature of brands as asset”. International Journal of
Advertising 8: 339-49.
10
Pitta, D. A and Katsanis (1995), “Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing 12(4): 51-64
11
Ferquhar, P.H., Herr P.M. (1993), “The dual structure of brand association”, In Aaker, D.A., Biel, A.Eds. Brand
Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, 263-77.
12
Lessar.W (1995), “Measuring Customer Based Brand Equity” journal of consumer marketing 12(4): 11-19
13
Feldwick. P. (1996), “What is brand equity anyway and how do you measure it”. Journal of the marketing
research society, 38: 85-10

36
14
Lassar (1995) Consumer choice of a brand depends on a perceived balance between the price of
a product and all its utilities. A consumer is willing to pay premium prices due to the higher brand
equity.
15
Leuthesser (1988) The Marketing Science Institute states that the underlying determinants of
consumer-based brand equity are that brands provide benefits to consumers by differentiating
products, as they facilitate the processing and retrieval of information.
16
Ries and Trout (1985). Other marketing literatures also stress the importance of the distinctive
character of brand positioning in contributing to the success of a brand. Distinctiveness is defined
as the degree to which the consumer perceives that a brand is distinct from its competitors. A brand
can have a price premium if it is perceived as being different from its competitors.
17
Thakor and Kohli (1996) argue that brand country of origin must also be considered. He defines
brand origin as “the place, region or country to which the brand is perceived to belong by its
customers”. Country of origin is known to lead to associations in the minds of consumers. The
country of origin of a product is an extrinsic cue, which, similar to brand name, is known to
influence consumers’ perceptions.
18
(Johansson et al. 1985), Country of origin refers to the country of origin of a firm or a product
or the country where the product is manufactured or assembled. Also states that less concern should
be given to the place where brands manufacture their products, and more to the place where people
perceive the brand’s country of origin to be. Therefore, country of origin in the proposed
framework referred to the brand’s country of origin.
14
Lessar.W (1995), “Measuring Customer Based Brand Equity” journal of consumer marketing 12(4): 11-19
15
Leuthesser (1988),” Defining, measuring and managing brand equity: A conference summary.Report #88-104”,
Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
16
Ries, Al and Trout, Jack. (1985),”Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: An introduction to
special issue”, Journal of Marketing Research 31: 149-158.
17
Thakor and Kohli Chiranjeev S. (1996),” Brand Origin: Conceptualization and Review”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing 13 (3): 27-42.
18
Johansson (1985),” Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a new methodological
perspective”, Journal of Marketing Research 5(3): 175-187.

37
19
Blumenthal and Bergstrom (2003) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) must be mentioned
as another concept that is influencing the development of brands nowadays, especially corporate
brands as the public wants to know what, where, and how much brands are giving back to society.
Both branding and CSR have become crucially important now that the organizations have
recognized how these strategies can add or detract from their value. CSR can be defined in terms
of legitimate ethics or from an instrumentalist perspective where corporate image is the prime
concern.
20
Zeithaml (1988). Perceived quality is the customer’s judgment about a product’s overall
excellence or superiority that is different from objective quality. Objective quality refers to the
technical, measurable and verifiable nature of products/services, processes and quality controls.
He classified the concept of perceived quality in two groups of factors that are intrinsic attributes
and extrinsic attributes. The intrinsic attributes are related to the physical aspects of a product (e.g.
color, flavor, form and appearance); on the other hand, extrinsic attributes are related to the
product, but not in the physical part of this one (e.g. brand name, stamp of quality, price, store,
packaging and production information It’s difficult to generalize attributes as they are specific to
product categories.
21
Olson and Jacoby (1972).The intrinsic attributes are related to the physical aspects of a product
(e.g. color, flavor, form and appearance); on the other hand, extrinsic attributes are related to the
product, but not in the physical part of this one (e.g. brand name, stamp of quality, price, store,
packaging and production information. It’s difficult to generalize attributes as they are specific to
product categories.
19
Blumenthal, D. and Bergstrom A. J. (2003),” Brand councils that care: Towards the convergence of branding and
corporate social responsibility”, Brand Management 10 (4/5): 327-341.
20
Johansson (1985),” Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a new methodological
perspective”, Journal of Marketing Research 5(3): 175-187.
21
Olson, J.C. and Jacoby, J. (1972),” Cue utilisation in the quality perception process”, In Venkatesan, M. Ed.
Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research,Association for Consumer
Research, Chicago, IL, pp. 167-79.

38
22
Grembler and Brown (1996). Loyalty is a core dimension of brand equity. Grembler and
Brown define brand loyalty as the attachment that a customer has to a brand and describe different
levels of loyalty. Behavioral loyalty is linked to consumer behavior in the marketplace that can be
indicated by number of repeated purchases or commitment to rebuy the brand as a primary choice.
Cognitive loyalty which means that a brand comes up first in a consumers’ mind, when the need
to make a purchase decision arises, that is the consumers’ first choice. The cognitive loyalty is
closely linked to the highest level of awareness (top-of-mind), where the matter of interest also is
the brand, in a given category, which the consumers recall first. Thus, a brand should be able to
become the respondents’ first choices (cognitive loyalty) and is therefore purchased repeatedly
(behavioral loyalty).
23
Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001) mention that brand loyalty is directly related to brand price.
Identify price premium as the basic indicator of loyalty. Price premium is defined as the amount a
customer will pay for the brand in comparison with another brand offering similar benefits and it
may be high or low and positive or negative depending on the two brands involved in the
comparison.
24
Peter and Olson (1993) mention that interaction between the people’s emotions, moods,
affection and special feelings is called consumer behaviour, in other words in environmental
events which they exchange ideas and benefits each is called consumer behavior. Buying behavior
reflects who purchase product for personal use and not for business purposes.
25
Nigel F.Piercy (1996) in his study “The effects of customer satisfaction measurement: the
internal market versus the external market” Reports some of the findings of a recent study of the
internal market effects of customer satisfaction measurement, and identifies a number of ways in
which use of customer satisfaction information have negative effects within the organization,
which may stand in the way of implementation of market strategies of service and quality. This
22
Grembler, D. and Brown S.W. (1996),” The loyalty ripple effect: appreciating the full value of customers”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management 10(3):271-93
23
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook M. B. (2001),” The chain of effects from brand trust and brand effect to brand
performance: The role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing 65(April): 81-93.
24
Peter,J.P. and J.C.Olson, (1993), “Consumer behavior”, Vol: 5,Pp.15.
25
Nigel F. Piercy (1996),”The effects of customer satisfaction measurement: the internal market versus the
external market”, VOl:14, Pp.107

39
suggests a management agenda which extends far beyond the acquisition of customer satisfaction
data and reporting systems, to consider the full impact of such measurement systems.

40
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

41
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter three describes the research methodology used in this study. It addresses the target
population, sampling techniques, size and data collection and validity of the instrument used in the
study.
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
Research design is important primarily because of the increased complexity in the market as well
as marketing approaches available to the researchers. In fact, it is the key to the evolution of
successful marketing strategies and programmers.
It is an important tool to study buyer behavior, consumption pattern, brand loyalty, and focus
market changes. A research design specifies the methods and procedures for conducting a
particular study. Research Design is a plan, conceptual structure, and strategy of investigation
conceived as to obtain answers to research questions and to control variance.
There are generally three types of research:
1. Exploratory research
2. Descriptive research
3. Casual research
Among them Descriptive Research is used in this research
The reason for choosing descriptive research design is that to get knowledge about phenomena by
asking why, when, how, where, what. To gain the background information, to define terms, to
clarify problems and to develop hypothesis, to develop questionnaire to be answered by the
respondents regarding “A Study on brand awareness and brand perception of Fertilizers with
special reference to FACT, Ernakulam.
3.3 DATA SOURCES AND DATA COLLECTION METHOD
Data collection: The people who are using fertilizers are taken into consideration
and data’s are collected from them.
Two types of data have been collected for this study which is briefly discussed below:
(A) Primary data:

42
It is a first time collected data which is original in character. It is collected when the secondary
data are not sufficient for research. It is collected by the researcher. Personal interview, for primary
data – filling questionnaire.
(B) Secondary data:
In any study secondary data plays a crucial role from the inception to destination which on the one
hand strengthens knowledge base and saves time and resources on the other Secondary data have
been collected for this study from different published and unpublished documents such as research
reports, different institutions, journals, articles, internet, books, magazine, newspaper etc.
3.4 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
3.4.1 TARGET POPULATION
It refers to the entire group of individuals or objects to which researchers are
interested in generalizing the conclusion. The target population usually has varying characteristics
and it is also known as the theoretical population or simply we can say that “It is a territory or
geographical area where the research is conducted”
3.4.2 SAMPLING METHOD
There are generally two types of sampling methods
 Probability sampling method
 Non-probability sampling method
In this research Random Sampling Method is used which is a part of non-probability sampling
method.
3.4.3 SAMPLE SIZE
100 Respondents was taken as the sample size for the study

43
3.5 STATISTICAL TOOLS
1. Percentage analysis
2. Cross tabulation method
3. CHI square method
3.6 SOFTWARE FOR ANALYSIS:
SPSS Software (Statistical Package for Social Sciences)

44
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
AND
INTERPRETATION

45
4. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 SIMPLE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
4.1.1 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON RESPONDENT’S AGE
Age Frequency Percent
Up to 30 19 19.0
31-40 38 38.0
41-50 30 30.0
51-60 13 13.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.1 Simple Frequency analysis on respondents' age
Inference
From table and chart it is inferred that out of total 100 respondents 19% belongs to age group up
to 30. 38 respondents belongs to 31-40 age, 30 belongs to 41-50 age group, 13 belongs to 51-60
age group
Figure 4.1.1 pie chart of simple frequency analysis of age of the respondents

46
4.1.2 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON GENDER OF RESPONDENTS
Figure 4.1.2 pie chart of simple frequency analysis of gender of the respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents 71 are male and
29 are female it contribute 51.9% of the total respondents.
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 71 71.0
Female 29 29.0
Total 100 100.0
Table4.1.1 Simple Frequency analysis on respondents' gender

47
4.1.3 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON ANNUAL INCOME OF RESPONDENTS
Annual income Frequency Percent
< 10,000 1 1.0
10,000-50,000 12 12.0
50,000-1,00,000 53 53.0
1,00,000-2,00,000 32 32.0
2,00,000-3,00,000 2 2.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.2 Simple Frequency analysis on annual income of respondents
Figure 4.1.3 pie chart of simple frequency analysis of annual income of the respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents 1% have annual income
below 10,000, 10000-50000 have 12%, 50000-100000 have 53%, 100000-200000 have 32% and
200000-300000 have 2% of the total respondents.

48
4.1.4 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF FAMILY OF RESPONDENTS
Family Frequency Percent
joint family 26 26.0
nuclear family 74 74.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.3 Simple Frequency analysis on type of family of respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents 26% are joint family and 74% are
nuclear family of the total respondents.
Figure 4.1.4 pie chart of simple frequency analysis of type of family of the respondents

49
4.1.5 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF LAND OF RESPONDENTS
land Frequency Percent
own 35 35.0
lease 51 51.0
other 14 14.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.4 Simple Frequency analysis on type of land of respondents
Figure 4.1.5 bar chart of simple frequency analysis of type of land of the respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents 35% have own land, 51%
have lease and 14% have other type of land of the total respondents.

50
4.1.6 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON FARMING EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS
Particulars Frequency Percent
Less than 1 year 8 8.0
1-2 years 21 21.0
3-5 years 61 61.0
more than 5 years 10 10.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.5 Simple Frequency analysis on farming experience of respondents
Figure 4.1.6 bar chart of simple frequency analysis of farming experience of the respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents 8% have farming
experience less than 1 year, 21% have 1-2 years, 61% have 3-5 years and 10% have more than 5
years of the total respondents.

51
4.1.7 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF IRRIGATION METHOD ADOPTED OF
RESPONDENTS
Canal 16 16.0
Bore well/well 30 30.0
Pond 31 31.0
Water tank 13 13.0
Rain fed 10 10.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.6 Simple Frequency analysis on type of irrigation of respondents
Figure 4.1.7 bar chart of simple frequency analysis of type of irrigation method of the respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents, in type of irrigation 16%
have canal, 30% have bore well, 31% have pond, 13% have water tank and 10% have rain fed of
the total respondents.

52
4.1.8 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF FERTILIZER OF RESPONDENTS
Urea 21 21.0
N.P.K 12 12.0
Organic 67 67.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.7 Simple Frequency analysis on type of fertilizers of respondents
Figure 4.1.8 bar chart of simple frequency analysis of type of fertilizers of the respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents, 21% uses urea,12% uses
N.P.K., 67% uses organic fertiizers of the total respondents.

53
4.1.9 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON USAGE OF FACT FERTILIZERS OF RESPONDENTS
quality 22 22.0
quantity and production 32 32.0
fertility 36 36.0
other 10 10.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.8 Simple Frequency analysis on usage of FACT fertilizers of respondents
Figure 4.1.9 bar chart of simple frequency analysis of usage of FACT fertilizers of the respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents, 22% respondents’ uses
fertilizer due to quality, 32% uses for quality and production, 36% uses for fertility and others uses 10% of

54
4.1.10 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS OF LOYAL CUSTOMER OF FACT OF RESPONDENTS
yes 73 73.0
no 27 27.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.9 Simple Frequency analysis on loyal customers of FACT of respondents
Figure 4.1.10 bar chart of simple frequency analysis of loyal customers of FACT of the
respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents 73% are loyal customers
of FACT and 27% are not loyal.

55
4.1.11 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FACT AND FACT
PRODUCTS
Newspaper,magazines 29 29.0
Fellow Farmers 31 31.0
Krishi Bhavan 27 27.0
FACT depot 13 13.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.10 Simple Frequency analysis on knowledge of FACT and FACT products of
respondents
Figure 4.1.11 bar chart of simple frequency analysis of knowledge of FACT and FACT products
of the respondents

56
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents 29% came to know of
FACT through newspapers and magazines, 31% from fellow farmers, 27% from krishi bhavan and
13% from FACT depot.

57
4.1.12 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ON TYPE OF FERTILIZER OF FACT
Chemical fertilizer 21 21.0
Bio-fertilizer 79 79.0
Total 100 100.0
Table 4.1.11Simple Frequency analysis on type of fertilizer of FACT of respondents
Figure 4.1.12 bar chart of simple frequency analysis of fertilizers of FACT of the respondents
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents uses chemical fertilizers
and 79% are bio fertilizers.

58
4.2 CROSS TABULATION ANALYSIS
4.2.1 AGE AND WHO INFLUENCE TO YOU IN YOUR PURCHASE DECISION
CROSSTABULATION
Particulars Who influence to you in your purchase decision Total
Self-decision Friends &
Relatives
Advertisement Other
Age
Up to 30 7 5 4 3 19
31-40 19 11 3 5 38
41-50 11 10 3 6 30
51-60 3 5 5 0 13
Total 40 31 15 14 100
Table 4.2.1 Age and Who influence to you in your purchase decision Crosstabulation
Figure 4.2.1 Age and Who influence to you in your purchase decision Crosstabulation

59
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents, age group of
respondent’s up to 30, 7% of them have self-decision 5% from friends and relatives, 4%through
ads and others have 3% to buy fertilizers. Age group of respondent’s 31-40, 19% of them have
self-decision 11% from friends and relatives, 3%through ads and others have 5% to buy fertilizers.
Age group of respondent’s 41-50, 11% of them have self-decision 10% from friends and relatives,
3%through ads and others have 6% to buy fertilizers. Age group of respondent’s 51-60, 3% of
them have self-decision 5% from friends and relatives, 5%through ads and others have 0% to buy
fertilizers.

60
Table 4.2.3 Age and price sensitive customer Crosstabulation
Figure 4.2.3 Age and price sensitive customer Crosstabulation
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents, age group of
respondent’s up to 30, 13% are price sensitive customers and 30% comes under age of 31-40, 22%
for age of 41-50, 8% for age of 51-60.
4.2.3 AGE AND PRICE SENSITIVE CUSTOMER CROSSTABULATION
Particulars price sensitive customer Total
yes no
Age
Up to 30 13 6 19
31-40 30 8 38
41-50 22 8 30
51-60 8 5 13
Total 73 27 100

61
4.2.4 AGE AND HOW MUCH PRICE DO YOU SPEND ON FERTILIZERS
CROSSTABULATION
Particulars How much Price do you Spend on fertilizers Total
Below 1,000 1,001 – 3,000 3,001 – 5,000 Mora than5,001
Age
Up to 30 4 13 2 0 19
31-40 6 26 5 1 38
41-50 6 20 4 0 30
51-60 1 7 3 2 13
Total 17 66 14 3 100
Table 4.2.4 Age and how much price spent on fertilizers Crosstabulation
Figure 4.2.4 bar chart of Age and price sensitive customer Crosstabulation
Inference
From the above table and chart it is inferred that out of 100 respondents, age group of respondent’s
up to 30, 4% spend below 1000 on fertilizers. Age group of 31-50 26% spend Rs1001-3000 on
fertilizers. Age group of 51-60 7% spend Rs1001-3000 on fertilizers.

62
4.2.5 AGE AND I PREFER FACT FERTILIZER BECAUSE I GET GOOD QUALITY
CROSSTABULATION
Particulars I prefer FACT fertilizer because I get good quality Total
Disagree neither agree nor
disagree
agree highly agree
Age
Up to 30 1 4 8 6 19
31-40 1 18 9 10 38
41-50 1 8 9 12 30
51-60 0 5 5 3 13
Total 3 35 31 31 100
Table 4.2.5 Age and I prefer FACT fertilizer because I get good quality Crosstabulation
Figure 4.2.5 bar chart of Age and I prefer FACT fertilizer because I get good quality
Crosstabulation

63
Inference
up to 30, 6% highly agree that they buy it for good quality. Age 31-40, 18% of them are neutral,
age of 41-50, 12% highly agree and age 51-60, 5% agree.

64
4.2.6 AGE AND I USE FACT FERTILIZER BECAUSE FOR BEST PRODUCTION
CROSSTABULATION
Particulars I use FACT fertilizer because for best production Total
highly
disagree
Disagree neither agree
nor disagree
agree highly agree
Age
Up to 30 0 4 7 6 2 19
31-40 0 2 18 15 3 38
41-50 1 4 16 8 1 30
51-60 0 2 10 0 1 13
Total 1 12 51 29 7 100
Table 4.2.6 Age and I use FACT fertilizer because for best production Crosstabulation
Figure 4.2.6 bar chart of Age and I use FACT fertilizer because for best production
Crosstabulation

65
Inference
up to 30, 2% highly agree that they buy it for best production. Age 31-40, 18% of them are neutral,
age of 41-50, 1% highly agree and age 51-60, 0% agree.

66
4.2.7 AGE AND REGULAR USE OF FACT FERTILIZER INCREASES LAND
FERTILITY CROSSTABULATION
Particulars Regular use of FACT fertilizer increases land fertility Total
Disagree neither agree
nor disagree
agree highly agree
Age
Up to 30 0 3 7 9 19
31-40 5 6 16 11 38
41-50 1 16 9 4 30
51-60 0 4 7 2 13
Total 6 29 39 26 100
Table 4.2.7 Age and Regular use of FACT fertilizer increases land fertility Crosstabulation
Figure 4.2.7 bar chart of Age and Regular use of FACT fertilizer increases land fertility
Crosstabulation

67
Inference
up to 30, 9% highly agree that the regular use of FACT fertilizer increases land fertility. Age 31-
40, 6% of them are neutral, age of 41-50, 4% highly agree and age 51-60, 7% agree.

68
4.2.8 AGE AND THE PRICE OF FACT FERTILIZER IS CONVENIENT FOR ME
CROSSTABULATION
Particulars The price of FACT fertilizer is convenient for me Total
disagree
agree highly agree
Age
Up to 30 0 13 4 2 19
31-40 0 14 14 10 38
41-50 2 15 5 8 30
51-60 0 6 3 4 13
Total 2 48 26 24 100
4.2.8 Age and The price of FACT fertilizer is convenient for me Crosstabulation
Figure 4.2.8 bar chart of Age and The price of FACT fertilizer is convenient for me
Crosstabulation

69
Inference
up to 30, 2% highly agree that the price of FACT fertilizer is convenient. Age 31-40, 14% of them
are neutral, age of 41-50, 8% highly agree and age 51-60, 4% agree.

70
4.2.9 AGE AND PROFIT MARGIN CHARGE BY FACT IS REASONABLE
CROSSTABULATION
Particulars Profit margin charge by FACT is reasonable Total
disagree
agree highly agree
Age
Up to 30 3 8 5 3 19
31-40 3 13 16 6 38
41-50 6 6 9 9 30
51-60 2 5 3 3 13
Total 14 32 33 21 100
Table 4.2.9 Age and Profit margin charge by FACT is reasonable Crosstabulation
Figure 4.2.9 bar chart of Age and Profit margin charge by FACT is reasonable Crosstabulation

71
Inference
up to 30, 3% highly agree that profit margin charge by FACT is reasonable. Age 31-40, 113% of
them are neutral, age of 41-50, 9% highly agree and age 51-60, 3% agree.

72
4.2.10 AGE AND I AM SATISFIED WITH THE PACKAGING STYLE CROSSTABULATION
Particulars I am satisfied with the packaging style Total
disagree
Agree highly agree
Age
Up to 30 5 6 3 5 19
31-40 11 12 5 10 38
41-50 6 17 2 5 30
51-60 4 5 2 2 13
Total 26 40 12 22 100
Table 4.2.10 Age and I am satisfied with the packaging style Crosstabulation
Figure 4.2.10 bar chart of Age and I am satisfied with the packaging style Crosstabulation

73
Inference
up to 30, 5% highly agree that satisfied with the packaging style. Age 31-40, 12% of them are
neutral, age of 41-50, 5% highly agree and age 51-60, 2% agree.

74
4.3 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ANALYSIS
4.3.1 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND AVAILABILITY OF
FERTILIZERS WHEN NEEDED
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 12.081a
16 .738
Likelihood Ratio 13.832 16 .611
Linear-by-Linear Association .468 1 .494
N of Valid Cases 100
a. 18 cells (72.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.
Table 4.3.1 Chi-Square Tests on annual income and availability of fertilizers when needed
Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between annual income and availability of fertilizers when needed.
Inference
From the above chi-square table it is inferred that the significant value is .738 which is greater than
.05 hence we accept null hypothesis.

75
4.3.2CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND SCHEMES PROVIDED
FACT IS GOOD
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
16 .488
Table 4.3.2 Chi-Square Tests on annual income and Schemes provided FACT is good
Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between annual income and Schemes provided FACT is good.
Inference

76
4.3.3CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND I SUGGEST MY FRIENDS, AND
RELATIVE TO USE FERTILIZER
12 .691
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.573 1 .059
Table 4.3.3 Chi-Square Tests on annual income and I suggest my friends, and relative to use
fertilizer
Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between annual income and I suggest my friends, and relative to use
fertilizer.
H1: There is association between annual income and I suggest my friends, and relative to use
fertilizer
Inference

77
4.3.4CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME ON I LIKE THE FEATURES OF
FACT FERTILIZER
12 .138
Table 4.3.4 Chi-Square Tests on annual income on I like the features of FACT fertilizer
Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between annual incomes on I like the features of FACT fertilizer
Inference

78
4.3.5 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND I AM SATISFIED WITH THE
DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS
12 .543
Table 4.3.5 Chi-Square Tests on annual income and I am satisfied with the distribution of products
Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between annual income and I am satisfied with the distribution of
products
Inference

79
4.3.6 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND I AM SATISFIED WITH THE
SERVICE OFFERED BY FACT PERSONNEL
12 .930
Table 4.3.6 Chi-Square Tests on annual income and I am satisfied with the service offered by
FACT personnel
Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between annual income and I am satisfied with the service offered by
FACT personnel
Inference

80
4.3.7 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND FACT FERTILIZER IS
OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT THAN OTHERS
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
16 .254
4.2.7 Chi-Square Tests on annual income and FACT fertilizer is obviously different than others
Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between annual income and FACT fertilizer is obviously different
than others
Inference

81
4.3.8 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND I CONSIDER MYSELF AS
LOYAL TO THIS BRAND
16 .036
Table 4.3.8 Chi-Square Tests on annual income and I consider myself as loyal to this brand
Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between annual income and I consider myself as loyal to this brand
Inference

82
4.3.9 CHI-SQUARE TESTS ON ANNUAL INCOME AND RATE PERFORMANCE OF
FACT WITH OTHER BRANDS
12 .474
Table 4.3.9 Chi-Square Tests on annual income and rate performance of FACT with other brands
Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between annual income and rate performance of FACT with other
brands.
Inference

83
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS
AND CONCLUSIONS

84
5.1 FINDINGS
 From the table 9 and chart 9 it is inferred that out of 100 respondents, 22% respondents’ uses
fertilizer due to quality, 32% uses for quality and production, 36% uses for fertility and others uses 10% of
 From the above table18 and chart 18 it is inferred that out of 100 respondents, age group
of respondent’s up to 30, 9% highly agree that the regular use of FACT fertilizer increases
land fertility. Age 31-40, 6% of them are neutral, age of 41-50, 4% highly agree and age
51-60, 7% agree.
 From the above table19 and chart 19 it is inferred that out of 100 respondents, age group
of respondent’s up to 30, 2% highly agree that the price of FACT fertilizer is convenient.
Age 31-40, 14% of them are neutral, age of 41-50, 8% highly agree and age 51-60, 4%
agree.
 There is no association between annual income and availability of fertilizers when needed.
The significant value is .738 which is greater than .05.
 There is no association between annual income and Schemes provided FACT is good. The
significant value is .488 which is greater than .05.
 There is no association between annual income and I am satisfied with the distribution of
products. The significant value is .543 which is greater than .05.
 There is no association between annual income and I am satisfied with the service offered
by FACT personnel. The significant value is .930 which is greater than .05.
 There is no association between annual income and rate performance of FACT with other
brands. The significant value is .474 which is greater than .05.

85
5.2 SUGGESTIONS
 Product has good demand in market so introduce the type of product.
 Improve distribution channel: The distribution should be prepared so that the farmers in
each area should get the products easily.
 Increase promotional activity due to low product awareness.
 Do the advertisements in local newspapers and radios
 Make pamphlets for giving the information.
 Make the farmers aware about products through personal contacts.
 Prepare a short film showing the demonstration
 Prepare the demonstration field for giving the practical knowledge.
 Increase advertisements in local newspapers.
 The farmers should provide some schemes like discounted prices for large purchasing.
 Match the price to the competitors price.
 Marketing promotions and strategies should be programmed to the underground level, so
that all the farmers could understand about the brans.
 Frequent visit to the farms of respondents could help more to the consumers.

86
5.3 CONCLUSION
The study of my project is that is there any brand awareness and brand perception of FACT
fertilizers in the customers in Ernakulam district. It was very interesting interacting with the
customers and have an insight into brand image in their minds.
The study shows that there is brand awareness among the customers to an extent. Many of
them mostly buy fertilizers based on the price of the product. Some of them are attracted to it due
to the schemes provided to the farmers by FACT.
The customers have good perception on FACT fertilizers. They believe that the product is made
in a good manner without any mal practices. The customers rely on the product mostly due to its
quality. The respondents say that the quality and quantity of the fertilizer is satisfactory concerned
with its price.
The families that are to mostly nuclear families. They don’t have high income. Therefore
they say that the product is affordable. Many of them say that they have a good production system.
Right amount of ingredients are put to make it perfect.
The customers say that, when they use FACT fertilizers frequently, they experience that
their fertility increases. This makes them a serial customer of the product. As they are serial
cestomers, they even get special offers with the fertilizers.
The study also shows that there should be more marketing promotions to be done by the
company. They need to get to the underground level. If possible, if they take care of their family
through certain ways like, health care, education, etc., it would increase consumer perception to
the product.

88
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kotler, (2000) “Marketing Management”. The Millennium Edition, Upper Saddle River, Prentice
Hall.
Rooney, J.A. (1995), “Branding: a trend for today and tomorrow”, Journal of product and
management. 4(4) 48-55.
Farquhar, (1991), “Recognizing and Measuring Brand Assets”, Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA
Keller KL. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing 57(1):1-22.
Aaker (1991), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management
Rev,38(spring):57-62.
Aaker (1991), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management
Rev,38(spring): 57-62
Aaaker (1996) ), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management
Rev,38(spring): 120-120
Kotler, Philip and Keller Kevin L. (2006), “Marketing Management”, 12th
edition.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
De Chernatony, L. & McWilliam G. 1989), “The varying nature of brands as asset”. International
Journal of Advertising 8: 339-49.
Pitta, D. A and Katsanis (1995), “Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing 12(4): 51-64

89
Ferquhar, P.H., Herr P.M. (1993), “The dual structure of brand association”, In Aaker, D.A., Biel,
A.Eds. Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, 263-77.
Lessar.W (1995), “Measuring Customer Based Brand Equity” journal of consumer marketing
12(4): 11-19
Feldwick. P. (1996), “What is brand equity anyway and how do you measure it”. Journal of the
marketing research society, 38: 85-10
Lessar.W (1995), “Measuring Customer Based Brand Equity” journal of consumer marketing
12(4): 11-19
Leuthesser (1988),” Defining, measuring and managing brand equity: A conference
summary.Report #88-104”, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Ries, Al and Trout, Jack. (1985),”Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: An
introduction to special issue”, Journal of Marketing Research 31: 149-158.
Thakor and Kohli Chiranjeev S. (1996),” Brand Origin: Conceptualization and Review”, Journal
of Consumer Marketing 13 (3): 27-42.
Johansson (1985),” Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a new
methodological perspective”, Journal of Marketing Research 5(3): 175-187.
Blumenthal, D. and Bergstrom A. J. (2003),” Brand councils that care: Towards the convergence
of branding and corporate social responsibility”, Brand Management 10 (4/5): 327-341.
Johansson (1985),” Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a new
methodological perspective”, Journal of Marketing Research 5(3): 175-187.

90
Olson, J.C. and Jacoby, J. (1972),” Cue utilisation in the quality perception process”, In
Venkatesan, M. Ed. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer
Research,Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL, pp. 167-79.
Grembler, D. and Brown S.W. (1996),” The loyalty ripple effect: appreciating the full value of
customers”, International Journal of Service Industry Management 10(3):271-93
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook M. B. (2001),” The chain of effects from brand trust and brand effect
to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing 65(April): 81-93.
Peter,J.P. and J.C.Olson, (1993), “Consumer behavior”, Vol: 5,Pp.15.
Nigel F. Piercy (1996),”The effects of customer satisfaction measurement: the internal market
versus the external market”, VOl:14, Pp.107

92
QUESTIONNAIRE
I am SANDHYA JOHN student of NEHRU COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT doing MBA
(III_Semester). I am conducting research on the title “A STUDY ON BRAND AWARENESS
AND BRAND PERCEPTION OF FERILIZERS IN FACT, ERNAKULAM MAINLY
CONCENTRATING IN ELOOR AND MUVATTUPUZHA Dist.” I would be grateful if you
could spare few minutes to help in filling this questionnaire which is part of my project report.
Your cooperation will be highly appreciated and I assure you that this information will be used for
study purpose only and will be kept highly confidential.
Name: _______________________________________________________
Age:
Up to 30 31-40
41-50 51-60
Gender
Male Female
Annual Income
< 10,000 10,000-50,000
50,000-1,00,000 1,00,000-2,00,000
2,00,000-3,00,000 >3,00,000

93
Type of family:
Joint family Nuclear family
Type of land
Own Lease
Other
Farming experience:
Less than 1 year 1-2 years
3-5 years more than 5 years
Do you use Fertilizer?
Yes No
Type of irrigation method adopted
Canal Bore well/well
Pond Water tank
Rain fed
Which fertilizers do you use?
Urea N.P.K
Organic Other

94
Why do you use FACT fertilizer?
Quality Quantity & production
Fertility Other
Are you aware of the fertilizers of FACT?
Yes No
Are you a loyal customer of FACT?
Yes No
How did you come to know about FACT and FACT Products?
Newspaper,magazines Fellow Farmers
Krishi Bhavan FACT depot
Which type of fertilizer of FACT are you using?
Chemical fertilizer Bio-fertilizer
Who influence to you in your purchase decision?
Self-decision Friends & Relatives
Advertisement Other

95
Are you a price sensitive customer?
Yes No
How much Price do you Spend on fertilizers?
Below 1,000 1,001 – 3,000
3,001 – 5,000 Mora than5,001
Will you stick to the same product if their price is increased (and you are a loyal customer
to the product)?
Yes No
Maybe
Give your answer using following scale.
1= highly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= neither agree nor disagree, 4= agree, 5= highly agree
1 2 3 4 5
I prefer FACT fertilizer because I get good quality.
I use FACT fertilizer because for best production.
Regular use of FACT fertilizer increases land fertility.
The price of FACT fertilizer is convenient for me.
Profit margin charge by FACT is reasonable
I am satisfied with the packaging style.
Availability of fertilizer when I need
Schemes provided FACT is good.

96
I suggest my friends, and relative to use fertilizer.
I like the features of FACT fertilizer
I am satisfied with the distribution of products
I am satisfied with the service offered by FACT personnel
FACT fertilizer is obviously different than others
I consider myself as loyal to this brand
How do you rate performance of FACT with other brands:
Suggestions: ___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Thank You.
1 2 3 4 5

A study on brand awareness brand perception of fertilizers in fact

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to A study on brand awareness brand perception of fertilizers in fact

Similar to A study on brand awareness brand perception of fertilizers in fact (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A study on brand awareness brand perception of fertilizers in fact