Strategic Marketing - Chevrolet Spark - ‘The Spark That Didn’t Light’

4,816 views

Published on

The Spark That Didn’t Light

Published in: Automotive
6 Comments
6 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,816
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
6
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Strategic Marketing - Chevrolet Spark - ‘The Spark That Didn’t Light’

  1. 1. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment – ‘The Spark That Didn’t Light’ Group 12 Gopalakrishnan D 0910021 Kedar G Poonja 0910030 Krishnakumar Unnikrishnan 0910033 Nikhil Popli 0910039 Vivek Gupta 0910073
  2. 2. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Executive Summary In April 2007 GM launched the Chevrolet Spark with a lot of fanfare and expectations. GM had earlier taken over the passenger car division of the collapsed South Korean giant Daewoo in 2002 and was attempting to create an enhanced Daewoo Matiz as a car to rule the Indian market in the A2 segment in the Rs 3-4 lac price range. The Daewoo Matiz had been a very successful model and had only suffered because of the collapse of South Korean giant Daewoo. The car used to sell an impressive 6,000 units per month when the passenger car market was 40% of what it is today. GM were therefore of the opinion that an enhancement would lead to an even more successful model. The consumer however had different plans for Chevrolet Spark. While its peers like Maruti WagonR and Hyundai Santro are selling 10,000 units per month, Spark sells only 2,500 units per month. This report aims to perform a root-cause analysis of the relative failure of GM Spark, in spite of the success of the base model (Matiz) that it was built upon. It also builds upon the results from these to bring out the factors essential for the success of a car in this segment. The analysis does so in the context of peers who were successful during the same period and attempts to form an understanding of the consumer’s expectations within this segment. Consumer expectations and other sales influencing factors have been identified using a survey as a primary source and with published literature as a secondary source. The primary sources of data are: a) Survey of current owners of Chevrolet Spark, Hyundai Santro and Maruti WagonR, and b) Survey to evaluate the needs of potential car buyers for a 3-4 lac price range A2 segment vehicle. c) Mystery shopping at various car showrooms The secondary sources of data are: a) Auto websites b) Trade magazines and journals c) Market research reports The report finds that the primary cause for failure was external to the vehicle itself and revolved around the perception of GM in terms of key factors such as cost, quality and service. These major areas of weakness continue to haunt GM and their recent tryst with bankruptcy has only served to further compound the issue. The report recommends a conscious focus by GM to establish themselves as a reliable company able to meet the needs of the Indian consumer, given the challenges of vastness of the country and the lack of infrastructure. We recommend that GM should invest in reviving the company’s brand image in order to make its models like Spark successful. 2
  3. 3. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance provided by the project guide Prof.Mithileshwar Jha throughout the development of this project. The authors also thank their batch mates for providing constant encouragement, support and valuable suggestions during the development of the project. Last but not the least, we wish to acknowledge the feedback of consumers and thank the 125 consumers who have participated in the survey conducted by us which helped us exceed the targeted sample of 60 consumers and hence helped us achieve a more reliable sample. 3
  4. 4. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Candidates’ declaration We hereby declare that this project report titled ‘The Spark That Didn’t Light' submitted towards the completion of Project in 3rd Term of EPGP in Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore is an authentic record of our work and does not contain any material that has been taken from any source, except as acknowledged, carried out under the guidance of Prof.Mithileshwar Jha, IIM, Bangalore. Gopalakrishnan D (0910021) Kedar G Poonja (0910030) Krishnakumar Unnikrishnan (0910033) Nikhil Popli (0910039) Vivek Gupta (0910073) Date: August 3, 2009 Place: Bangalore 4
  5. 5. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Contents 1 Chapter 1: Introduction, Scope and Objectives ............................................................................. 7 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Objective.............................................................................................................................................. 8 2 Chapter 2: Methodology ................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Record the influencing Macroeconomic factors ................................................................................. 9 2.2 Record the Industry situation .............................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Identify known parameters that influence the buying process .......................................................... 9 2.4 Identify data sources ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Divide the parameters ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.6 Formulate questionnaire and circulate it. ......................................................................................... 10 2.7 Collect the information from survey results and available literature ............................................... 10 2.8 Analyse the information in the context of the defined objective ..................................................... 10 2.9 Identify findings ................................................................................................................................. 10 2.10 Conclude with recommendations ..................................................................................................... 10 3 Chapter 3: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Macroeconomic (CONTEXT) .............................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Industry (CONTEXT & COMPETITORS) ............................................................................................... 13 3.3 Company (COMPANY & COMPETITORS) ........................................................................................... 15 3.3.1 General information03: .............................................................................................................. 15 3.3.2 JD Power CSI survey data05: ....................................................................................................... 16 3.3.3 Network data04: ......................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Product (CUSTOMERS, COMPANY & COMPETITORS) ....................................................................... 17 3.4.1 Primary Survey data: ................................................................................................................. 17 3.4.2 Market research data: ............................................................................................................... 24 3.4.3 Brand identity & ads: ................................................................................................................. 26 3.4.4 Magazine & Website comparisons: ........................................................................................... 29 4 Chapter 4: Implications and Recommendations .......................................................................... 34 4.1 Implications ....................................................................................................................................... 34 5
  6. 6. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 4.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................................. 35 4.2.1 Segmentation & Targeting: ....................................................................................................... 36 4.2.2 Positioning: ................................................................................................................................ 36 4.2.3 Product: ..................................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.4 Price: .......................................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.5 Place: ......................................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.6 Promotion: ................................................................................................................................. 37 4.2.7 Public relations: ......................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.8 People: ....................................................................................................................................... 37 5 Exhibits: Links to questionnaire: ................................................................................................... 38 5.1 Potential customer survey questionnaire ......................................................................................... 38 5.2 Existing customer survey questionnaire ........................................................................................... 41 6 References .................................................................................................................................... 44 6
  7. 7. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 1 Chapter 1: Introduction, Scope and Objectives 1.1 Introduction Following India's economic liberalization in 1991, the automobile industry was opened for 100% foreign direct investment. A surge in the country's economic growth rate and purchasing power has fuelled a 17% annual growth rate in the Indian automobile industry since 1991. It was in this environment of growth that General Motors (GM) decided to enter the Indian automobile space to be a significant player in a car market, dominated by small cars, and aiming for a market share of 10% by 2010. The car GM chose to enter the A2 segment was the Chevrolet Spark, which was an enhanced model of the successful Daewoo Matiz. Following the fall of the South Korean auto giant, Daewoo, GM decided to take over some of their passenger car facilities in Korea and the Matiz was part of that deal. The Indian consumer was happy with Matiz and GM hoped to leverage this brand image by launching the Spark. In order to give a fresh feeling to the product GM had worked on enhancing the Daewoo Matiz by mainly focussing on changing the body styling (minor), engine and interiors, and the new Spark shares just 20% of its components with the Daewoo Matiz01. Following the launch however, the sales numbers for GM (Chevrolet) were disappointing. GM had projected that its Spark and Aveo UVA models will drive the company’s volumes by contributing around 37,000 units a month. What should have been a cake walk is struggle that continues to this day. Sales of Spark continue to significantly lag its peers from the stables of its competitors like Maruti and Hyundai. While WagonR and Santro clock around 10,000 units a month, Spark is barely able to manage 2,500 units per month. The sales in the A2 segment of the Indian passenger car industry has been growing at a scorching pace. During 2004-05 to 2008-09, the passenger car industry has grown at a CAGR of 10% whereas the A2 segment has grown at a CAGR of 16%. The growth of the Indian passenger car industry has been led by the sales of cars in the A2 segment. The share of this segment to the total passenger car sales has increased from 54% in 2001-02 to 61% in 2004-05 to 73% in 2008-09. As all manufacturers see growth in this segment hence it is the most competitive segment of the Indian auto industry. Economic growth rate is a key determinant of volume growth in the auto sector and with measures such as a reduction in excise duties and lower interest rates there are likely to be strong force 7
  8. 8. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light multipliers for the sector, going forward. Given the importance of the Indian auto sector in the global context, it is important for the big players to learn from their past mistakes. 1.2 Scope This report restricts itself to the A2 segment as defined by SIAM and does so because this segment covers the majority of the Indian car buyers. Within the segment, the area of focus is the failure Chevrolet Spark when compared with two of the highest sellers in the same segment, Maruti WagonR and Hyundai Santro. The competitors and the car market situation since the period of the launch will also be detailed in the report to identify factors that influenced the situation. Consumer expectations and other sales influencing factors have been identified using a survey as a primary source and with published literature as a secondary source. The primary sources of data are: a) Survey of current owners of Chevrolet Spark, Hyundai Santro and Maruti WagonR, and b) Survey to evaluate the needs of potential car buyers for Rs.3-4 lac price range A2 segment vehicle. c) Mystery shopping at various car showrooms The secondary sources of data are: a) Auto websites b) Trade magazines and journals c) Market research reports 1.3 Objective This report aims to perform a root-cause analysis of the relative marketing failure of GM’s Chevrolet Spark, in spite of the success of the base model (Matiz) that it was built upon. It also builds upon these results to analyse the KSFs (Key Success Factors) for a car in this popular segment of the Indian passenger car industry. 8
  9. 9. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 2 Chapter 2: Methodology Following the definition of the problem as stated above, the following steps were followed in order to develop this report. 2.1 Record the influencing Macroeconomic factors The forces external to the industry, the company and the product can sometimes have the maximum influence on the product. Even in the emerging India a car is seen as a luxury and a social aspiration need, rather than a necessity. Given this context the macroeconomic environment could play an observable role in the purchasing decision. 2.2 Record the Industry situation The auto industry in India has been through many a cycle, there was a major upturn as the noveau upper middle class emerged during the late ‘90s and downturns during the dotcom burst and the recent global economic crisis. Given these factors the analysis of success and failure and the identification of factors that aid success and failure need to be determined in the context of how the industry was doing. 2.3 Identify known parameters that influence the buying process In order to study the key drivers for the auto industry and the stories of success and failure, there have to be certain parameters that are taken as a basis of evaluation of known influences. This base should assist in the process of identifying if the cause of failure (in this case) was an industry known factor, which was ignored, or were there certain other factors that were unique to the situation but could aid in the future assessment of marketing strategies for new products in this industry. 2.4 Identify data sources Given the nature of the problem the first step in the identification of data sources is to validate if there is a requirement for a primary data source or if the related cost can be saved. Once the need for a data source (primary/secondary) has been identified, the means to collect the data has to be isolated. In the context of this report there was a need for a primary data source, as the problem was of a specific nature and its complexities demanded that the end user/potential user be involved in the process. Given the decision to expend effort on primary data collection, we identified that our primary data source would be a survey research done using a questionnaire that would be circulated to potential and existing customers for the vehicles in scope i.e. Maruti WagonR, Hyundai Santro and Chevrolet Spark, and Mystery shopping at various car showrooms to understand how each manufacturer demonstrates superiority of his product over its competitors especially Spark. The sample size for the survey was decided as a total of 60 across the 2 groups (potential customers and current customers) and with a conscious focus to have the respondents geographically dispersed and diverse in terms of the base location being from various tiers. The respondent also had to be someone who had already made a car purchasing decision or was near term potential purchaser in order to make the data relevant and accurate given the medium sample size. Respondents’ feedback was obtained through personal contact and also through internet based questionnaires in order to facilitate convenience, easy access and wider reach. 2.5 Divide the parameters The parameters that were identified for investigation were divided into those that can be directly or indirectly inferred from the survey results and those that will be further explore through 9
  10. 10. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light published literature. This allows for clarity in structuring the questionnaire, relevance of response and for parallel investigation of topics while the survey response is being collected. 2.6 Formulate questionnaire and circulate it. Formulating the questionnaire has to be given a lot of significance in these list of steps as it is the one critical step in capturing valuable information from existing and potential customers which will affect the overall quality of our analysis. The following steps were followed in developing the questionnaire: 1. Determined what parameter should be questioned in which questionnaire 2. Gave a brief summary of the instructions and the reason for the questionnaire 3. While framing each question, it was reviewed to ensure that there wasn’t scope for ambiguity 4. Responses were limited to multiple choice wherever possible in order to facilitate grouping of data 5. The length of the questionnaire, questions and the time required to fill it were kept to a minimum to ensure that respondents would be co-operative and that it would sustain their interest till the end 6. Questionnaire was posted on a website also 7. A dry run of the questionnaire was done after it was posted on the website by the report preparation team and it was checked for spelling, grammar, ambiguity and overall professionalism 2.7 Collect the information from survey results and available literature Based on the split of parameters the non-survey data was researched from published sources on the internet, in journals and in books. The survey data was collected after sufficient respondent sample size was achieved. 2.8 Analyse the information in the context of the defined objective The analysis of the data was done by first evaluating the macroeconomic and industry influencers which should have a common effect across companies and product brands across the segment. This was done to exclude the effect of exceptional abnormalities from the true drivers. Once the data had been purged of this noise of external factors the product-wise data was evaluated along the identified parameters to bring forward correlations. 2.9 Identify findings Findings have been split into 3 major groups for presentation, a) findings that show why Spark failed, b) key strengths of WagonR and Santro, and c) parameters that influence sales in the A2 segment (especially in the price range of Rs.3-4 lacs). 2.10 Conclude with recommendations Based on the findings from the both groups the report aims to capture a marketing plan for GM that would allow them to help Spark achieve its potential. 10
  11. 11. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 3 Chapter 3: Findings 3.1 Macroeconomic (CONTEXT) The passenger car penetration in India is at 8.5 vehicles per thousand people absolute terms. It is among the lowest in the world. As per capita GDP of a society grows, mobility needs for its population rapidly increase. The proportion of young people, who are economically active, is rising in the overall population. This has led to increasing urbanisation and the need for mobility which translates into a higher demand for two and four wheelers in India. 11
  12. 12. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light The current trends and the forecasted trends of income levels and shift in spending by Indian consumers from basic necessity to discretionary items show that the biggest increase in spending has been on transportation02. Income distribution of 2005 and projected distribution for 2015 is shown below: 12
  13. 13. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light The affordability of cars has increased and is further bound to increase due to increase in the disposable incomes especially that of the middle class (strivers and seekers) which has and will fuel the growth of the Indian passenger car industry. 3.2 Industry (CONTEXT & COMPETITORS) Driven by strong economic growth and rise in disposable income levels, the Indian auto industry has clocked a CAGR of 10% over the last 5 years. Years 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 CAGR A2 segment sales 4,96,219 5,72,743 7,52,280 8,59,082 8,85,975 16% Car Industry 8,20,017 8,81,891 10,75,464 12,04,309 12,22,150 10% Passenger cars — Segment-wise domestic market share Segment Player 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 A1: Mini 14.2 10.1 7.4 5.8 4.0 A2: Compact 60.5 64.9 69.9 71.4 72.6 Fiat India Ltd 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 Ford India Ltd - - - 0.2 0.2 General Motors India Ltd 0.5 0.1 0.3 3.9 4.5 Hyundai Motors India Ltd 22.8 21.7 21.8 21.3 23.9 Maruti Udyog Ltd 54.7 58.5 58.5 58.1 57.7 Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd - - - 0.3 0.7 Tata Motors 21.3 19.5 19.2 15.8 12.6 A3: Mid-size 21.8 21.6 18.3 18.8 19.8 A4: Executive 2.8 2.6 3.8 3.5 2.8 A5: Premium 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 A6: Luxury 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Grand total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note The share for players represents their share within each segment. Source: CRISIL Research, SIAM 13
  14. 14. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Majority of the growth in the industry has come from the A2 segment which contributes around 70% of the total sales of passenger cars. The model-wise annual sales of the cars for the last 5 years in the A2 segment are as follows: The new cars market has a large number of buyers. Although switching costs are low, and buyers price-sensitive, manufacturers have invested in brand building, which further weakens buyer power. The Porter’s 5-forces analysis for the Indian passenger car industry is as depicted below: Brand strength and reputation are highly important within this industry, and it is therefore relatively difficult for new players to directly enter the market. The Escaped Shopper study for India by M/s. JD Power finds that shoppers are most concerned with price and financing-related factors. Following price of the vehicle, the vehicle’s fuel economy is the second most often cited reason for rejection. Vehicle affordability, both in terms of initial and 14
  15. 15. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light running cost, is a key consideration for the new-vehicle buyer in India. Both existing and new manufacturers planning to become significant players in the Indian market need to understand and incorporate these considerations in their product planning initiatives. The study is based on responses from more than 2,000 potential customers of new cars and utility vehicles. The study has been conducted annually since 2005 onwards. 3.3 Company (COMPANY & COMPETITORS) 3.3.1 General information03: In 1994 General Motors India was formed as a joint venture, owned 50% by Hindustan Motors and 50% by General Motors, to produce and sell Opel branded vehicles. GM bought out the Hindustan Motors interest in 1999. It started production of cars in 1996. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. was established as a fully owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Corporation, Korea in India in 1996. It started production of cars by 1998. Maruti Udyog Limited was formed through a joint venture between the government of India and Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan in 1981 and started production in 1983. Since 1996, GM has launched the following 12 vehicles since its inception in India: YEAR of Dis- Models Launch continue Opel Astra 1996 2003 Opel Corsa 2000 2006 Opel Corsa Swing 2001 2005 Opel Corsa Sail 2003 2005 Opel Vectra 2003 2005 Chevrolet Forester 2003 2006 Chevrolet Optra 2003 -- Chevrolet Tavera 2004 -- Chevrolet Aveo 2006 -- Chevrolet Aveo UVA 2006 -- Chevrolet Spark 2007 -- Chevrolet Captiva 2008 -- Out of the 12 vehicles, 6 have already been discontinued after an average time of 4 years in the Indian market, including the infamous Opel range of vehicles which tarnished the image of GM because of poor styling, poor fuel efficiency and costly maintenance as compared to the other cars being sold in the market at that time. The Hyundai Santro was launched in 1998 while the WagonR in 2000. Hence, both the models which lead the segment have been in the market for almost 10 years and hence show the respective company’s commitment towards keeping the product in the stable to generate an assurance in the customers’ mind about the ease in getting serviced and parts availability in the market for the product. 15
  16. 16. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 3.3.2 JD Power CSI survey data05: M/s. JD Power, a reputed market research company, conducts annual surveys to understand the trends of customer satisfaction of various manufacturers. The study finds out the service satisfaction of the customers who have owned the vehicles for around 12 to 18 months. The trends for last 5 years for Maruti Suzuki, Hyundai and GM are as depicted in the chart below: JD Power Customer Satisfaction scores 900 850 800 Maruti Suzuki 750 Hyundai 700 General Motors 650 600 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 The service satisfaction level (as rated by the customers) of GM has consistently been lower than both Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai. 3.3.3 Network data04: Even the sales and service network have a huge difference with GM having the smallest network among the 3 manufacturers. The same is as depicted below: 4000 3500 3000 2500 Sales 2000 Service 1500 1000 500 0 Maruti Suzuki Hyundai General Motors 16
  17. 17. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 3.4 Product (CUSTOMERS, COMPANY & COMPETITORS) 3.4.1 Primary Survey data: The primary survey was conducted with 2 sets of customers viz: a. Potential customers i.e. who are planning to purchase a car in the range of Rs.3-4 lacs. b. Existing customers i.e. who presently own a car in the range of Rs.3-4 lacs. We had surveyed 50 potential customers and 75 existing customers i.e. a total of 125 customers. The potential customers were surveyed on the following aspects: a. Demography b. Potential vehicle usage c. Importance of 30 aspects/attributes related to: i. Brand, company and service ii. Engine and performance iii. Comfort iv. Styling v. Safety, security and environment d. Awareness of and inclination towards Spark The existing customers were surveyed on the following aspects: a. Demography b. Vehicle usage c. Satisfaction with 13 aspects/attributes of their present product related to: i. Service ii. Product iii. Ownership experience d. Awareness of and inclination towards Spark 3.4.1.1 Potential customer survey data (50 customers) Age distribution Salary range of potential customers (lacs p.a.) 16% 18% > 15 <5 36-45 <5 22% 26% 26-35 5 - 10 66% 10 - 15 <25 10 - 15 5 - 10 > 15 24% 28% 17
  18. 18. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Targeted usage Current ownership Leisure Daily office All purpose trips commuting No vehicle 4% 6% Home use 22% Home Leisure trips 2-wheeler 2-wheeler use 42% 30% All purpose 4-wheeler 4-wheeler 36% Daily office No vehicle commuting 60% Chauffer Vehicle driven by No How many are aware of Spark? driven 10% 4% Self driven Yes Yes Chaffeur driven No 90% Self driven 96% How many will consider buying Age of those willing to buy Spark Spark? <25 36-45 17% 8% Yes 24% 36-45 Yes 26-35 No 26-35 No 75% <25 76% The 5 attributes of a product which are MOST important to a customer (who is purchasing a vehicle in the range of Rs.3-4 lacs) are: 1. Mileage/ fuel economy 2. After sales service quality 3. Maintenance cost 4. Air conditioner 5. Vehicle price The 5 attributes of a product which are LEAST important to a customer are: 1. Cigarette lighter 2. Digital clock 3. Wheel covers 4. Rear glass wiper/ defogger 5. Body coloured bumpers 18
  19. 19. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light The top 5 reasons why a customer would buy Spark are: 1. Cheaper as compared to other cars 2. Good mileage/ fuel efficiency 3. Compact size 4. Longer warranty period 5. Lower maintenance cost The top 5 reasons why a customer would NOT buy Spark are: 1. Poor reputation of GM 2. Stability of GM is a concern 3. Concern about after sales service network 4. Based on same old Matiz platform, hence may be old technology 5. Not heard much about the car 3.4.1.2 Existing customer survey data (75 customers) a. WagonR customers profile and feedback > 55 Age distribution of WagonR customers 0% 46-55 < 25 12% 12% < 25 36 - 45 24% 26 - 35 36 - 45 26 - 35 53% 46-55 > 55 WagonR customer feedback 5.0 4.6 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 19
  20. 20. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Top strengths of the product (score > 4): 1. Reliability 2. Accessibility of workshop 3. Maintenance cost 4. After sales service quality 5. Warranty issues handling The product doesn’t have any significant weakness i.e. in no parameter is the average less than 3.5 Top positive aspects of the product which motivated the customer to purchase: 1. Value for money 2. Driving comfort 3. Trusted brand 4. Wide service network 5. Good fuel efficiency Top negative aspects of the product which need improvement: 1. Gear shifting not smooth 2. Less attractive interiors b. Santro customers profile and feedback Age distribution of Santro customers 46-55 0% > 55 < 25 36 - 45 9% 13% < 25 17% 26 - 35 36 - 45 26 - 35 61% 46-55 > 55 Top strengths of the product (score > 4): 1. Reliability 2. Drive and ride quality 3. Engine power pickup and performance 4. Accessibility of workshop 5. Comfort 6. Exterior build quality The product doesn’t have any significant weakness i.e. in no parameter is the average less than 3.5 20
  21. 21. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Top positive aspects of the product which motivated the customer to purchase: 1. Smooth engine 2. Easy to drive 3. Reliability 4. Seating comfort 5. Good exterior design Santro customer feedback 5.0 4.5 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.0 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Top negative aspects of the product which need improvement: 1. Costly to maintain & service 2. Poor fuel efficiency c. Spark customers profile and feedback 46-55 Age distribution of Spark customers 0% > 55 0% 36 - 45 < 25 20% 20% < 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 26 - 35 46-55 60% > 55 21
  22. 22. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Top strengths of the product (score > 4): 1. Maintenance cost 2. Engine power, pickup and performance 3. Warranty issues handling 4. Mileage/ fuel economy 5. Interior build quality Spark customer feedback 5 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.5 4 4 3.8 3.8 4 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Top weaknesses of the product (score < 3.5): 1. Exterior build quality 2. Safety and security 3. Comfort Top positive aspects of the product which motivated the customer to purchase: 1. Value for money 2. Good fuel economy 3. Compact size 4. Low price Top negative aspect of the product which needs improvement: 1. Small size of tyres 22
  23. 23. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light d. Spark awareness and willingness to purchase How many are aware of Spark? How many willing to buy Spark? No Yes 5% 8% Yes Yes Yes No 95% No 92% No The top 3 reasons why a customer would buy Spark are: 1. Low price 2. Value for money 3. Compact size The top 5 reasons why a customer would NOT buy Spark are: 1. Happy with current product 2. Poor brand image of GM service quality and network 3. Not sure of stability of GM 4. Smaller than WagonR and Santro 5. Planning for a bigger car in next purchase e. Comparison Comparison on top 5 attributes which are important to customers: S.No. Parameter WagonR Santro Spark 1 Mileage/ fuel economy 3.9 3.7 4.0 2 After sales service quality 4.0 3.8 3.6 3 Maintenance cost 4.1 3.7 4.6 4 Air conditioner 3.9 4.0 3.4 5 Vehicle price higher higher lower Overall Value for Money 4.1 4.1 4.4 Spark scores over its competitors on 3 out of the 5 attributes which are most important to a customer when purchasing a vehicle in the range of Rs.3-4 lacs. Score summary on the satisfaction levels for 12 parameters asked from existing customers: S.No. Analysis point WagonR Santro Spark 1 Average score 4.0 3.9 3.8 2 Standard deviation 0.25 0.24 0.47 Though the average score of Spark is marginally lower than WagonR and Santro, the standard deviation is quite higher which shows that there are few parameters on which Spark is not performing well and hence is affecting the overall impression of the product. 23
  24. 24. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 3.4.2 Market research data: Various reputed companies are involved in conducting annual market research for the various products in the market. 2 such agencies are M/s.JD Power and M/s.TNS automotive. Following are the results of the market research conducted by the companies for our 3 models i.e. WagonR, Santro and Spark. a) JD Power APEAL study05: The annual study measures owners’ delight with the design, features, layout and performance of their new vehicle. Eight performance factors contribute to overall APEAL scores: engine/ transmission; cockpit/ instrument panel; ride/ handling/ braking; heating/ ventilation/ cooling (HVAC); comfort/ convenience; sound system; seats; and vehicle styling/ exterior. APEAL (Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout) performance is reported as an index score based on a 1,000- point scale. JD Power APEAL survey score 805 800 795 WagonR 790 Santro 785 Spark 780 775 2007 2008 As per the above data, Spark had the novelty factor in 2007 which helped it to obtain higher score in 2007, but in 2008, it was overtaken by WagonR. Rather the appeal for Spark has declined over 2008 while the other 2 models have shown improvements. b) JD Power IQS study05: The study measures new-vehicle quality in the first 2 to 6 months of ownership based on 135 problem symptoms. Overall performance is summarized by problems experienced per 100 vehicles (PP100), with lower scores reflecting better JD Power IQS survey score (pp 100) 200 150 WagonR 100 Santro Spark 50 0 2007 2008 24
  25. 25. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light quality performance. Each problem symptom measured is classified into one of nine IQS (Initial Quality Study) categories: ride, handling and braking; features and controls; seats; heating, ventilation and cooling (HVAC); sound system; vehicle exterior; vehicle interior; transmission; and engine. The above data shows that Spark has not been the vehicle with the lowest quality problems in the segment. The segment has always been led by WagonR which has the lowest quality problems in the segment amongst the 3 models. c) JD Power VDS study05: The Vehicle Dependability Study measures problems experienced by original owners of 30- to 42-month-old vehicles by examining more than 150 problem symptoms across nine vehicle categories: vehicle exterior; driving experience, which includes performance of brakes, steering wheel and tires; features, controls and displays; audio and entertainment; seats; heating, ventilation and cooling (HVAC); vehicle interior; engine; and transmission. Overall dependability is based on the number of problems reported per 100 vehicles (PP100), with lower scores indicating a lower rate of problem incidences and higher long-term vehicle quality. JD Power VDS survey score (pp 100) 400 300 WagonR 200 Santro 100 Spark 0 2007 2008 In this study also, Spark has never been the best vehicle. In 2007, both WagonR and Santro were better than Spark and in 2008, WagonR fared better. d) TNS TCS study05: The Total Customer Satisfaction (TCS) study is conducted by TNS TNS TCS survey score 94 92 90 WagonR 88 Santro 86 84 Spark 82 80 2007 2008 25
  26. 26. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light specialist division, TNS Automotive. This comprehensive study covers over 45 models with customer evaluations taken in the key areas of sales satisfaction, product quality, vehicle performance and design, after sales service, brand image, and cost-of- ownership. The TCS index score provides a measure of satisfaction and loyalty a given model enjoys with its customers. The study shows a decline in the customers’ satisfaction scores of the owners of Spark. Neither in 2007 nor in 2008 has Spark been better than both its competing models i.e. WagonR and Santro. 3.4.3 Brand identity & ads: a. WagonR brand identity The latest advertisement campaign of WagonR is as shown below. It projects WagonR as a car “For the smarter race”. The brand identity which Maruti Suzuki wishes is creating for WagonR is as given below. Compact Dependable Functional Smart Fuel Efficient Practical Trustworthy Customer obsessed Accessible Indian utility + Customer is King Japanese efficiency Reliable Low price – high Flexible utility Proud owner Family oriented Achiever Value focussed Tech savvy Recent upgrader 26
  27. 27. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light b. Santro brand identity The latest advertisements of Santro project it as the “First car & first choice” for the young couple. The brand identity which Hyundai wishes is creating for Santro is as given below. Stylish, but affordable Refreshing Youthful International Spacious Contemporary Innovative features Peppy Technology focused Star appeal Product focused Urban First time buyer Upwardly mobile Stylish Ambitious Empowered 27
  28. 28. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light c. Spark brand identity Thru advertisements, the Spark is shown as a car which is “Full of life” and targeted to the free young flirtatious college-going. The brand identity which GM is creating for Spark is as given below. Compact Comfortable Pretty Bubbly Young Youthful Fuel efficient Full of life Economical Value for money Young College goer Playful Fun loving Urban Stylish 28
  29. 29. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 3.4.4 Magazine & Website comparisons: 3.4.4.1 Autocar 2007 issue07 Except engine & performance, gearbox and ownership experience, Spark scores either at par or better than the best among its competitors in the segment. Thus the product is reasonably strong except for ownership experience which seems as a weak link across all customer feedbacks and published reports. 29
  30. 30. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 3.4.4.2 Price and feature comparison (based on information on websites) 04 Chevrolet Maruti Suzuki Hyundai Spark Wagon R Santro XK 1.0 1.0 PS 1.0 LS 1.0 LT LX LXi VXi GL GLS (Non AC) Ex-showroom Price (Rs. Lacs) 3.19 3.32 3.49 3.79 3.19 3.37 3.58 2.63 3.30 3.48 Standard Warranty 3 yrs/ 1,00,000 kms 2 yrs/ 40,000 kms 2 yrs/ unlimited kms Free services 3 years, including all parts and labour 1 year, only labour 1 year, labour and parts Dimensions & Weight Length (mm) 3495 3520 3565 Width (mm) 1495 1475 1490 1525 Height (mm) 1518 1660 1690 1590 Wheel Base (mm) 2345 2360 2380 Kerb Weight (kgs) 840 825 850 854 Engine & Transmission Displacement (cc) 995 1061 1086 Type SOHC SOHC SOHC Max. Pow er (ps) 63 64 63 Max Torque 92 84 96 Transmission 5 speed manual 5 speed manual 5 speed manual Wheels and Tyres Wheels 13" Steel Wheel/Alloy (O) 13" Steel Wheel 13" Steel Wheel 155/65 Tyres 155/70 R13 145/70 R13 155/70 R 13 R13 Suspension McPherson Strut w ith torsion type McPherson Strut w ith Stabilizer Front Mcpherson Strut Suspension roll control device Bar Coil spring w ith three-link rigid axle Torsional Beam Axle 3 Link Offset Rear Torsion beam and isolated trailing arms Coil Spring All 4 Gas filled Shock Absorbers Y N Y Mileage Fuel efficiency (city) 16.9 16.2 16.2 Exterior Full Wheel Covers N N Y Y N N Full N Half Y Body colour bumpers N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Body color tail gate handle N N N Y N N Y N N N Body color door handles N N N Y N N N N N N Body color Outside Mirrors N N N Y N N Y N N N Rear spoiler N N N Y N N N N N N Satin Silver Roof rails N N N Y N Black Black N N N Front fog lamps N N N Y N N Y N N N Alloy w heels N N N O N N N N N N Interior Fabric inserts on door trim N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Central Cockpit Control System Y Y Y Y N N N N N N Sporty pop up Tachometer N N N N N N N N N N Rear parcel shelf N N N Y N N N N N N Metallic finish on IP N N N Y N N Y N N N 30
  31. 31. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Chevrolet Maruti Suzuki Hyundai Spark Wagon R Santro XK 1.0 1.0 PS 1.0 LS 1.0 LT LX LXi VXi GL GLS (Non AC) Comfort and Convenience IP Low er Stow age Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Remote tail gate release Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Internally adjustable OSRVM's Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Passenger side sun visor w ith vanity Y Y Y Y N N Y N N N mirror Low fuel w arning lamp Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Seat back shopping hooks Y Y Y Y N N N N N N 1 Ltr Bottle holder in front doors Y Y Y Y N N N N N N AC Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Pow er steering N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Front pow er w indow s N N Y Y N N Y N N Y Rear pow er w indow s N N N Y N N N N N N Digital clock N N Y Y N N N N N N Cigarette lighter N N Y Y N N Y N N N Deatchable ash tray (Cup Type) N N Y Y N N N N N N Rear seat back rest folding & re- N N N Y N N N N N N folding facility w ith 60:40 Split Rear defogger N N N Y N N Y N N N Rear w iper and w asher N N N Y N N N N N N Sunglass holder N N N Y N N N N N N Safety & Security Day & Night Inside Rear View Mirror Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y 2.5 mph impact proof bumpers Y Y Y Y N N N N N N Door ajar w arning display Y Y Y Y N N N N N N Hexagonal Longitudinal Frame Y Y Y Y N N N N N N Tailor Welded Blanks Y Y Y Y N N N N N N ABS w ith EBD N N N O N N O N N N O (Driver Dual Airbags N N N N N O N N N Side) In terms of features and price, Spark 1.0PS, WagonR LXi and Santro GL are comparable models. Also, Spark 1.0 LS, WagonR VXi and Santro GLS are comparable. In terms of features, the Spark provides better features as compared to its competitors. Chevrolet even has a top end model of Spark in order to provide unique features which are usually provided in the cars of the next segment in order to create a positive identity of spark. However, the overall length and height is lesser than that of its both competitors which gives an impression that Spark is smaller as compared to its rivals. Hence, the price seems to be a bit on the higher side. The service periodicity of spark is every 5,000 kms while that of WagonR and Santro is 10,000 kms. Hence, the frequency of service will be double that of its competitors. 31
  32. 32. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 3.4.4.3 Spare Parts price comparison (Price in Rs.) 04 Chevrolet Maruti Hyundai Spark Wagon R Santro SERVICE PARTS AIR FILTER 169 107 188 OIL FILTER 73 60 78 FUEL FILTER 165 174 172 WIPER BLADE (PAIR) 262 225 273 SPARK PLUG (SET) 220 240 239 TIMING BELT / C HAIN 795 885 932 FAN BELT / DRIVE BELT 185 103 267 FRONT BRAKE PADS (SET OF 4) 915 991 993 SUB TOTAL SERVICE PARTS 2784 2785 3142 MECHANICAL PARTS AC EVAPORATOR C OIL 3998 6652 4220 RADIATOR HOSE SET 452 170 481 FRONT STRUT / SHOC K ABSORBER 1197 1377 1328 FRONT BRAKE DISC / DRUM 595 538 626 FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER ARM 937 372 1042 C LUTC H AND PRESSURE PLATE 1702 1897 1798 C LUTC H RELEASE BEARING 465 650 470 SUB TOTAL MECHANICAL PARTS 9346 11656 9965 ACCIDENT REPAIR PARTS FRONT BUMBER 965 1272 1015 WHEEL RIM (EAC H) 720 724 862 FRONT FENDER 1296 1540 1369 BONNET 3095 3230 3515 RADIATOR 2975 3272 3223 FRONT DOOR 5645 6153 5945 BOOTLID / TAILGATE 5588 5605 6463 HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY (EAC H) 2130 3045 2140 TAIL-LIGHT ASSEMBLY (EAC H) 855 1007 879 FRONT WINDSC REEN GLASS 2782 3584 2929 SIDE MIRROR (WITH C ASING) 398 376 423 SUB TOTAL ACCIDENT REPAIR 26449 29808 28763 PARTS AGGREGATE OF PARTS PRICES 38579 44249 41870 32
  33. 33. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 3.4.4.4 Mouthshut.com review06 The product recommendation by Mouthshut member is 90% for WagonR, 84% for Santro and 77% for Spark. The top reasons for NOT recommending Spark are: 1. Poor dealer service & response 2. Poor product quality (problems in new product) 3. Unreliability of GM as a company 4. Poor customer support 5. Poor engine pickup especially with AC 6. Poor gear shifting 7. Difficulty in claiming warranty 33
  34. 34. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 4 Chapter 4: Implications and Recommendations 4.1 Implications The Indian automobile market is on a rapid growth path with the economy predicted to grow by atleast 7% per annum. Moreover, the spending pattern of the people is shifting towards transportation and hence it will constitute a major portion of expenditures (19% of disposable income by 2015). Hence, the size of the pie is expanding which means that all manufacturers can grow simultaneously. For any car manufacturer, the growth and volumes will come from the A2 segment which is growing at a faster pace than the passenger car industry. The biggest threat to the industry is from substitutes but considering the infrastructure conditions, it will take a long time for substitutes to pose a real threat to cars. As per our survey and findings, the potential customers for this segment of vehicles are in the age group of 26-35 years (~ 70%). The main purpose of buying an A2 segment compact car is for daily office commuting and not much for home or leisure purpose. The 5 most important attributes for a customer who purchases a vehicle in this segment are: 1. Mileage/ fuel economy 2. After sales service quality 3. Maintenance cost 4. Air conditioner 5. Vehicle price Other features have a lower importance in deciding about a product and hence any manufacturer planning to introduce a vehicle in this segment must focus on projecting the product strengths on the above 5 attributes. Both WagonR and Santro have their respective USPs because of which they are selling well in the market, apart from the fact that they have taken adequate care of the basic attributes which influence the purchasing decision of a customer. WagonR’s USPs are reliability, brand reputation and service network. Santro’s USPs are performance, comfort and stylish design. After suffering the initial setback, Spark had reduced the price with its base model positioned at Rs.2.66 lacs (ex-showroom) in order to boost sales. In a desperate attempt to sell the car, not only is GM offering a 3 year/1 lac kms warranty but is also giving totally free services for 3 years. This strategy has no only put pressure on margins but also affects the viability of dealers who are majorly dependent on revenues from service in order to generate profits in the volume car segment. Hence, this strategy will also affect the satisfaction of GM’s dealers. GM had also introduced the “Chevrolet Promise” programme04 (campaign brief on next page) wherein if the maintenance cost of Spark exceeds Rs.13,000 in 3 years/45,000 kms then the additional cost will be reimbursed by the company. GM has also priced the spares parts of Spark quite competitively despite having lower volumes as compared to its competitors. During our mystery shopping, we found out that the discounts offered on Spark are in the range of Rs.40-50,000 depending on the variant, while that on WagonR and Santro was in the range of Rs.10-20,000. Higher discounts devalue the product which makes it difficult to sell at the original price in the long run. 34
  35. 35. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light Despite all these efforts 76% of the potential customers do not prefer to purchase Spark because of the following reasons: 1. Poor reputation of GM and failure of Opel brand in India 2. Poor service quality given by dealers and poor network spread 3. Smaller size than WagonR & Santro but same ex-showroom price 4. Association with Daewoo Matiz evokes notion of outdated technology Even the 20% of the current owners are not satisfied with the following aspects of the vehicle: 1. Exterior build quality 2. Comfort 3. Safety and security 4. Poor dealer service 5. Poor product quality and unreliable company Both WagonR and Santro have targeted the customers in the age group of 26-35 years and have positioned the product accordingly. Over the period of the life of the products, they have projected the products as being high on utility and practicality, thus being the right product for a small family. However, Spark has been targeted towards the college going crowd (< 25 years age) and has been positioned as a fun loving car rather than being practical. The college going crowd is not a segment with high disposable income and hence the potential customers will not be able to associate themselves with the product. 4.2 Recommendations As per our analysis, GM needs to review the complete targeting and positioning in order to be able to make spark a success. Our recommendations on the various fronts where GM needs to act are as given below: 35
  36. 36. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 4.2.1 Segmentation & Targeting: Spark should be targeted towards the segment of customers with characteristics as given below: a. Young people in the age group of 26 to 35 years. b. Nuclear family that is technologically well informed so that they can appreciate the value associated with the unique technical features of Spark. c. First time car buyer. d. Can also think of targeting urban working women (though not explicitly). 4.2.2 Positioning: Spark should be positioned as: c. Practical car meant for daily commuting rather than just for fun. d. Ideal car for a nuclear family. e. Value for money car by projecting competitive maintenance costs. f. Focus on mileage as a strong point rather than being peppy (as the car has smaller engine and hence delivers higher mileage). g. Reduce discounts, lower the price and position it as the “Next generation entry level car”. 4.2.3 Product: a. With regard to the features, Spark has better features as compared to its competitors but the positioning is confusing as it has 4 variants as compared to 3 for each of its competitors. The highest variant of Spark (which has no comparable variant from its competitors) has few features which are also offered by the top variants of its competitors. Hence, the 3rd variant of Spark falls short of features as compared to its competitors. We suggest that the number of variants be reduced to 2 or 3 so that the choice becomes easier for customers and saves production costs as well. Moreover, few unique features like tubeless tyres, low fuel warning lamp, internally adjustable ORVMs etc can either be deleted to help in the price reduction or be continued only if it can be promoted and customer is willing to pay a price for the unique features. Our survey suggests that these features are not valued high by customers. b. In order to improve its service network spread, GM must focus on expanding workshop network by opening more number of smaller workshops at varied locations rather than opening less number of big workshops at few locations. c. The warranty policy may be continued as it gives strong assurance to customer about the quality of the product. d. The 3 year free service may be withdrawn as it not only leads to disputes with customers but also affects the dealer’s satisfaction because it blocks the revenue source of service for a long time. The dealer needs to be motivated in order to support the product and promote sales in the long run. e. Change the service frequency from 5,000 kms to 10,000 kms (like it competitors), else the customers who own the car will have a feeling that the technology is inferior and the vehicle is costly to maintain. 36
  37. 37. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 4.2.4 Price: a. The price may be reduced by withdrawing majority part of the discounts as huge discounts have a negative effect on brand image and also confuses the positioning of the product. Some discount may be retained (~ Rs.10,000) which is essential for selling a product in this segment. b. The variants may be priced at ex-showroom prices of Rs.2.8 lacs for 1.0, Rs.3.0 lacs for 1.0 PS and Rs.3.3 lacs 1.0 LS (1.0 LT may be eliminated and few useful features incorporated in 1.0 LS). 4.2.5 Place: As the network of Spark’s competitors is far better in rural areas, hence Chevrolet must focus on developing its network (sales & service) in the urban areas. Moreover, the customers targeted in our recommendation will be concentrated in urban rather than rural areas. Hence, Spark should play on its current strength and venture into rural markets only when the urban market has been sufficiently tapped. 4.2.6 Promotion: a. Advertising fails to emphasize the core strengths of Spark. The ads must project the unique strengths of the product (which have been mentioned in the findings) rather than just focussing on peppiness of the product. b. In order to project the mileage advantage of Spark, “mileage rallies” may be conducted in major cities. This can be an annual event for Spark customers to convince them and other brand customer’s about superior fuel efficiency of Spark (mileage may be checked for all Spark vehicle participating and customers encouraged to drive in a manner to get higher mileage). In order to bring the concept closer to the Indian masses, the rally can be named something like “Spark Mileage Rally – Aakhri boond tak paisa vasool”. c. Promote 24-hour On-road Emergency Assistance service extensively to give psychological assurance to customers. d. Release satisfied customers’ testimonials in advertisements, alongwith their phone numbers, so that potential customers may get a first hand feedback about the product. 4.2.7 Public relations: a. Focus on bringing out articles in leading newspapers and magazines about the quality and reliability of GM. b. Focus on getting published competitive test drive reports which explicitly demonstrate superiority of Spark over its rivals. 4.2.8 People: Orient the dealer staff towards improving customer service levels by taking direct feedback from Spark customers. The feedbacks (both positive and negative) must then be shared with the dealers. Negative feedbacks must be taken up strongly with the dealers. This will not only keep the dealer on toes but also satisfy the customer as he will see the direct involvement of company in obtaining customers’ feedbacks. 37
  38. 38. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 5 Exhibits: Links to questionnaire: Potential customer: http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=51sbgavxh1d4xzz619822 Existing customer: http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=wbk82emc1tmku5l619842 5.1 Potential customer survey questionnaire 38
  39. 39. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 39
  40. 40. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 40
  41. 41. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 5.2 Existing customer survey questionnaire 41
  42. 42. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 42
  43. 43. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 43
  44. 44. Strategic Marketing End of Term Assignment Group 12 The “Spark” that didn’t light 6 References 01: Financial Express dated 22nd May, 2006: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/spark-to- share-only-20-of-matiz-components/169176/ 02: Macro economic data: http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/india_consumer_market/images/India_Interactive1.s wf 03: For all historical information related to General Motors India, Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai Motor India: www.financialexpress.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_India 04: Price and product feature information: Product brochures & Car Manufacturers’ websites: Maruti Suzuki India Limited: www.marutisuzuki.com Hyundai Motor India Limited: www.hyundai.co.in Chevrolet India: www.chevrolet.co.in 05: Market research data from survey companies websites: JD Power: http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases TNS automotive: http://www.tnsglobal.com/news/data-banks 06: Customer feedback website: www.mouthshut.com 07: Autocar India website: www.autocarindia.com 08: Industry data and sales figures: CRISIL Research, SIAM 44

×