The document summarizes research on the Indian sweet industry and a survey of Pullareddy Sweets' competitors. Some key findings include: - The Indian sweet market is valued at $664 million and growing at 10% annually. Hyderabad ranks 7th in India for sweet consumption. - The survey compared Pullareddy Sweets to competitors on price, taste, quality, service, and more. It found Pullareddy rated lowest on taste and was least recommended. - Customers said competitors had better service, packaging, and variety. Younger generations were not a target, and products lacked North Indian appeal. The report identifies problems and opportunities for Pullareddy Sweets to reinvent

1. Presented By Anudeep Gupta Pabba

2. Research Report of Pullareddy Sweets

3. Key findings - Sweet Industry in India
• India, One of the largest snack markets in world, has an market of value $ 1
billion and over 4 million tons in terms of volume.
• The industry has been growing around 16% for the last three years
• Branded segment is growing around 25% per annum.
• The Indian Sweet market is currently valued at around $664 million, with
about 70 per cent share ($ 461 million) in sugar Confectionery and the
remaining 30 per cent ($ 203 million) in Namkeen confectionery.
• The organized market for confectionery in India is valued at Rs 2,000 crore. As
per the study by Euromonitor, the Indian sugar confectionery market is
projected to expand at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10%.
• Growing population, rapid urbanization, changing consumer preferences etc
are expected to keep the demand increasing in future too. With a well-
integrated supply chain and a good marketing strategy, a tremendous
opportunity lies for these industries industry in India.

4. Key findings Sweet Industry – User pattern in India
Sweet Consumption trends in India
Source: Financialexpress.com
Hyderabad stands in 7th Place of
Consumption of Sweets in India

5. India Retail Market (Overall) : By Category
Category 2006 2011 2016 CAGR (2011-16)
Food and Sweet 217 325 425 5.50%
Apparel 25 35 50.2 7.50%
Jewellery & Watches 16.5 25.6 44.2 11.50%
Consumer Electronics & IT 16.5 22.7 42.8 13.50%
Pharmacy 8 13.9 23.4 11.00%
Furnishings & Furniture 6.5 9.1 17.1 13.50%
Restaurants and Food Joints 4.6 8.8 15.8 12.50%
Footwear 3.6 4.5 8.3 13.00%
Beauty Services 0.6 1.3 3 18.00%
Health/Fitness Services 0.4 1 2.5 20.00%
Others 11 23 42.5 13.10%
Total (US$ Bn) 310 470 675 7.50%
Source:TechnopakAnalysis:EmergingTrendsinIndianRetailandConsumer:2011

6. India Retail Market (Organized): By Category
Category 2006 2011 2016 CAGR (2011-16)
Food and Sweets 2 9 34 30.00%
Apparel 3.5 5.5 8 8.50%
Jewellery & Watches 1 2.5 7.5 25.00%
Consumer Electronics & IT 1.5 4 18 35.00%
Pharmacy 0.2 0.8 4.5 41.00%
Furnishings & Furniture 0.4 0.7 1.2 12.00%
Food and Beverage (Eating Out) 0.5 1.5 6 30.00%
Footwear 1 1.7 3.8 17.50%
Beauty Services 0.2 0.2 0.5 20.00%
Health/Fitness Services 0.1 0.2 0.6 25.00%
Total (US$ Bn) 10 26 84 26.00%
Source:TechnopakAnalysis:EmergingTrendsinIndianRetailandConsumer:2011

7. Objective of the Survey
• To compare pricing, packaging, taste, staffing, walk-in rate,
sale rate, innovation and customizability, variety, most and
least sold out product or type with the said client as
compared to market competitors
• To identify problem areas and differences with the said
client as compared to market competitors
• To identify problem areas store-wise
• To gain feedback from customers in view point of value
parameters like price, taste, quality
• To review client vision, mission and goals
• To formulate guidelines for the rebranding project

8. Survey

9. Five Force Model
Industry
Buyer
Power
Supplier
Power
Threat of
Substitutes
Potential
Entrants
• The survey was done on Porter’s five forces model, the competitor and new entrant strengths and replacing
capabilities were analyzed with comparison to the said client.
• The buyer power was analyzed as to what factors catalyze their act of buying sweets.
• A threat of fading value was identified by threat of substitutes in the near/far future.

10. Survey Outline
- Competitors Shagun,Vellanki, Dadus,Almond House, Shubh Avsar
and Emerald customers and outlets were surveyed, hereby they will
be collectively called “Competitors”
- Client outlets an walk-in customers were surveyed in the same
fashion, hereby they will be collectively called “GPR Outlets”
- The UDM’s were interviewed individually about their outlets,
competitors , industry, vision and plans of expansion.

11. Outlets

12. The following charts are a comparison of bothGPR and Competitor
outlets, the stores were rated on the on a scale of 1-5 ; 1 being very
bad and 5 being very good.
They were rated on the following parameters;
• Price
• Taste
• Quality (freshness)
• Sales service
• Location
• Variety
• Innovation

13. Price
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Emerald Almond
House
Dadus Shub
Avsar
Vellanki Shagun Pulla
Reddy

14. Taste
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5

15. Quality
0
1
2
3
4
5
6

16. Sale Service
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Emerald Almond
House
Dadus Shub
Avsar
Vellanki Shagun Pulla
Reddy

17. Location
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Emerald Almond
House
Dadus Shub
Avsar
Vellanki Shagun Pulla
Reddy

18. Variety
0
1
2
3
4
5
6

19. Innovation
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5

20. The following charts are the comparison of consumer
opinions at both competitor stores and GPR outlets on an
average;
The percentages are based on an average calculated from
consumer opinions at all stores.

21. What are the reasons you choose this store ?
- Quality,Taste ,Well-known , Location , Recommended
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Quality Taste Well-known Recommended Location
Emerald Almond House Dadus Pulla Reddy

22. Key Findings
- The said client brand runs on legacy, well-know
the long run the client brand value might depreciate
because of its fading value proposition.
- The said client brand rates low on location when
to other main competitors who are present in prime
locations.
- The said client rates lowest on the taste parameter,
reasons for this are unknown.
- The said client is the least recommended outlet,
reasons for it could be the lack of attractive

23. Do you think the price is worth it ?
-Yes - No - Maybe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Emerald Almond House Dadus Pulla Reddy
Yes No High

24. Key Findings
- The buying category at the said client’s store is most
prominently middle class economic zone, the lowest
prices in the market are still high for the community.
- Buyers at the competitor stores are upper middle
class community, most likely because of the locations
are located and the client is not. At locations where
is not a primary factor.
- The buyers are conscious about what price they buy
product.
- The said client’s pricing is lower than 80% of its
competitors.

25. Which of the following do you think lacks in store ?
Service, Ambience, Good Packaging andVariety
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Service Ambience Good Packaging Variety
Emerald Almond House Dadus Pulla Reddy

26. -The said client fails largely in sales service, the bar staff is
seldom responsive, interactive and knowledgeable lest
compared to the competitors.
- The said client also lacks a range of good packaging.
- The said client ranks low when creating a wholesome
customer experience when because of mundane
ambience.
- The clients competitors rank high in sales service and
variety.

27. What other categories or combos do you expect ?
Cookies ,Savouries ,Pickles , Nothing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cookies Savouries Pickles Nothing
Emerald Almond House Dadus Pulla Reddy

28. What purpose do you usually buy sweets for ?
Personal consumption ,Festivals, Gifting ,Distribution
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Self Gifting Festivals Distribution
Emerald Almond House Dadus Pulla Reddy

29. Problem Area
• The current crowd at the client outlets range from 30-55, the younger
generation is off the hook.
• The brand is not primarily available in varieties that are appealing to
North Indians, the crowd shifts to largely South Indian precisely only
Telugu people which makes our products niche.
• There is a large gap between the management, staff and the customer
which have to be bridged.
• The packaging is big lag due to use of multiple logos, no standard theme
and design. Uniformity and consistency are far taken aback.
• The brand recall is relying on a single factor legacy, this has to be re-
written to create a whole new experience and pass the pride factor to the
end consumer.

30. Identifying GPR Existing BrandValues
Product Class
Description
• Sweets
• Savouries
• Pickles
Quality • Value for money
• Strong Pedigree
Latent • Relying in legacy and
pride factor
• Very old-fashioned

31. Transforming GPR Existing Brand Values
Product Class
Description
• Sweets
• Savouries
• Pickles
Quality • Value for money
• Strong Pedigree
Latent • Relying in legacy and
pride factor
• Very old-fashioned
Pure Ghee House to
Traditional Snack
House
Reinforcing
Purity
Larger than
Life

32. Consumer Buying Perception
• Quality, Price, design are key factors considered at the time
of purchase.
• Deck up for special occasions to look good so that people
look up to you.
• Owning a product from us should be a status symbol.

33. Highlights /Que from the SWOT analysis
• Rebranding @ user friendly ( experience ,feel etc)
• TargetingYoung People
• Need to focus on IT & ITES group
• Tech presence

34. Communication challenge
• Establish: Sweet as a need across all the age groups
• Create demand and generate image to the stores
• People must identify with the Store as their ideal
destination.
• To establish the factor of reliability & bonding with the
brand
• To project as trustworthy brand and create Goodwill.

35. Marketing Calendar
The way forward
For Image & Emotional
Connect-
OOH & Radio
To Build Salience –
Improve Shop Visibility
Selective OOH media
For Fueling Growth –
Print & Web
Local Promotions – Cinema Screens
High dose of on-ground engagement with tying up with Radio
for activations
New Concept Promotions

36. Blind Test (For internal Employees)

38. Aggregate Survey Result

39. • Association of Pulla Reddy sweets with
Park-Hyatt and Radison-Blu
• Internal Branding of Koneru Lakshmaiya
University
• Involved in G.Pulla Reddy TVC Ideation

40. Thank You