Project by p solomon

786 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
786
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Project by p solomon

  1. 1. A STUDY OF MARKET SHARE FOR UNIPLY IN COMPARISION TO KITPLY, GREENPLY AND SHARON BY P. SOLOMON II MBA DOMS, MKU.
  2. 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT• I am forever grateful to Mr. Vipul Saxena , HR & Marketing Head, Uniply Industries Limited, Chennai, for his charitable heart to give his inspiring, vivacious and excellent guidance all through out the course of Project.• I am thankful to Dr. K. Ravichandran , Reader, Department of Management Studies, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, for his excellent guidance through out this project and also to make this manuscript technically correct.
  3. 3. SYNOPSIS• The project work has been mainly undertaken to study the market share for Uniply in comparision to Kitply, Greenply and Sharon.• The project work has also been done to study the various factors of purchase decision I.e., whether through Brand pull or rational analysis.• The study is also intended to analyse the factors of brand switching and covers the analysis of various factors for the satisfaction of retailers.
  4. 4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY• PRIMARY OBJECTIVE – To find out the market share for Uniply comparing to Kitply, Greenply and Sharon.• SECONDARY OBJECTIVES – To study the influence of various factors on the purchase decision of consumers of Plywood. – To know the consumers level of perception on various brands – To study the impact of brand name on the sales figures – To analyse the brand switching pattern – To estimate the influence of various factors on the retailers for their satisfaction.
  5. 5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  6. 6. • The study is a descriptive study as it portrays the characteristic and opinion of the retailers.• The nature of data collected was primary and the method used to collect the data was Interrogation/Communication mode . The tool used for this was questionnaire method.• Retailers and end users were taken as a sample unit for the study.• The sample size is 100-50 retailers and 50 end consumers.• The field work, for the case of retailers, covered the following areas-Choolai, Icehouse, Mint, Adyar, Kodambakkam, Ashok Nagar, Arcot Road, Ambattur, G.N. Chetty Road.
  7. 7. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION• BASED ON RESPONSES FROM RETAILERS
  8. 8. AVAILABILITY The following data gives the no. of outlets dealing with various brands 50 44 BRANDS NO OF OUTLETS PERCENTAGE 40 40 38 SHARON 22 44 KITPLY 19 38 30 28 UNIPLY 14 28 22 20 19 20 14GREENPLY 20 40 10 0 SHARON KITPLY UNIPLY GREENPLY
  9. 9. CONSUMERS INITIAL APPROACHThe following data gives the average percentage of consumers Asking by brand name - 34%Without specifying any brand name - 66% Mostly consumers do not ask by brand name. Also mainly those who ask by brand name are carpenters.
  10. 10. RETAILERS INFLUENCE No. of outlets Brands No. of outlets Percentage 10% KITPLY 5 10 10% KITPLY UNIPLY 5 10 UNIPLY GREENPLY 6 12 48% GREENPLY 12% SHARON 3 6 SHARON CENTURY 7 14 6% CENTURY OTHERS 24 48 14% OTHERSMostly retailers try to influence the local brands becauseof margin. Also in case of first grade, CENTURY is giventhe first preference
  11. 11. REACTION TO THE RETAILERS INFLUENCEThe level of their reaction is recorded in the 5-pointscale. The results are given asThe total credits given by 50 retailers=156(out of 250) Average Credits = 3.12(out of 5)By this, we can say that 62% of consumers buy thebrand that is influenced by the retailers.
  12. 12. BRANDS BEING ASKED INITIALLY Brands No. of resp. Percentage Initially asked brands KITPLY 15 30 UNIPLY 3 6 KITPLY SHARON 7 14 30% UNIPLY 40% SHARONCENTURY 4 8 CENTURYGREENPLY 1 2 6% 2% 8% 14% GREENPLY ASSAM 20 40 ASSAM Mostly consumers ask for Assam Prestige. Then comes Kitply. All others are given very low weightage.
  13. 13. BRANDS CONVERTED INTO ACTUAL PURCHASE Brands No. of respondents Percentage Actual purchase KITPLY 6 12 KITPLY UNIPLY 3 6 UNIPLY 24% 12% SHARON 9 18 6% SHARON CENTURY 3 6 CENTURY GREENPLY 6 12 18% GREENPLY ASSAM 11 22 22% 12% 6% ASSAMUNBRANDED 12 24 UNBRANDED By this, we can see that Assam is made into a sale, equally that of Unbranded. In case of first grade, Sharon takes the lead, and equally comes Kitply and Greenply, followed by Uniply and Century
  14. 14. FACTORS FOR BRAND SWITCHING The following table gives the ranking of various factors for brand switchingFactors Quality Price Availability Post Sale servicesRanks 1 21 24 4 1 2 17 16 16 1 3 12 10 18 10 4 - - 12 38 TotalCredits 159 164 112 65 By this we can see that Price factor is given the highest weightage. Quality factor is given the second place, followed by Availability. Post Sale services factor is given very least weightage.
  15. 15. SATISFACTION LEVEL OF RETAILERS WITH VARIOUS BRANDS Brands No. of respondents Total Credits Avg. Credit Retailers satisfaction level(Out of 10) Kitply 19 142.5 7.5 8 Uniply 14 102 7.3 7.5 7 Greenply 22 170 7.72 6.5 Avg. Credit Sharon 20 160 8 Kitply Uniply Greenply Sharon By this, we can say that Sharon provides the best for its retailers. Then comes Greenply, followed by Kitply. Even there is marginal difference, UNIPLY is comparatively lesser than all others.
  16. 16. Based on the responses from End users
  17. 17. BRANDS THAT HAVE MORE AWARENESSPreferences 1 2 3 Credits Brands Kitply 32 3 6 108 Greenply 4 2 2 54 Uniply 5 13 11 52 Sharon 7 10 1 42 Century 2 4 30 40The respondents are open to say what all brands that come to their mind. From that, the first three options were tabulated.
  18. 18. CONSUMERS PERCEPTION ON VARIOUS BRANDSThe following table gives perception level in 10-point scale Brands No. of Total Credits Avg. Credit Respondents Kitply 50 380 7.6 Uniply 50 415 8.3 Greenply 50 425 8.5 Sharon 50 375 7.5 By the table, we can see that consumers have good perception on UNIPLY and Greenply more than that of Kitply and Sharon.
  19. 19. STATUS OF VARIOUS BRANDS IN CONSUMERS’ MINDBrands Share of Mind Share of heart 20 No. of Percentage No. of respondents Percentage 15 Respondents 10 SHARE OF 5 Kitply 18 36 6 12 0 MIND SHARE OF Uniply 9 18 9 18 HEART Y Y Y Y N L L R PL OGreenply 9 18 4 8 TP IP TU AR N N KI EE EN U SHCentury 6 12 14 28 R C G Sharon 8 16 17 34 Kitply has the most share of mind. But Sharon has the most share of heart. UNIPLY has equal preference for share of mind and share of heart. It shows its customers ’ loyalty.
  20. 20. BRAND LOYALTY INDEXThe following data gives the credits given by theconsumers on the brand loyalty for the case ofplywood. This is done in the 10- point scale. Total Credits = 175 Avg.. Credits = 3.5 (out of 10)By this we can say that consumers are very lessbrand loyal to plywood.
  21. 21. FACTORS FOR PURCHASE DECISION Factors No. of resp. Percentage Factors for purchase decision Attitude of Brand others Attitude of others 23 46 image 28% Consumer reports 2 4 22% ConsumerSales force influence 12 24 reports Word of mouth 27 54 2% Word of Sales force Brand image 18 36 mouth influence 33% 15% ‘Word of mouth’ is given more weightage, followed by the ‘ attitude of others’;’Brand image’ is also given a reasonable weightage.
  22. 22. BRANDS THAT ARE BEING USED CURRENTLY Current usage share Brands No. of users Percentage 40 Kitply 2 4 30Greenply 8 16 20 10 Uniply 11 22 0 Percentage Greenply Century Uniply Kitply Sharon Sharon 16 32Century 13 26 Sharon comes first in the usage share. Then comesCentury followed by Uniply, Kitply, has got the leastplace.
  23. 23. BRANDS THAT WERE USED PREVIOUSLYThe following data gives the picture of the previous market Brands No. of resp. Percentage Previously used brands Kitply 14 28 Greenply 12 24 30 Century 9 18 20 10 Percentage Uniply 7 14 0 Sharon 2 4 Others 6 12 By this table, we can see that Kitply had the good business in the previous market. Then comes Greenply followed by Century and Uniply.
  24. 24. FACTORS FOR BRAND SWITCHING Factors No. of resp Percentage Factors for brand switching 40 Quality 16 32 30 20 Price 18 36 10 Percentage 0Sales force influence 9 18 Qualit y Price Sales Word of f or ce mout h Word of mouth 7 14 inf luence By this, Quality and Price are given equal preference. Also Sales force influence has some reasonable impact to switch the brands.
  25. 25. FACTORS FOR THE PREFERENCE OF UNIPLY Factors for preference of Uniply Factors Total Credits Price 16% Price 26 19% Quality Quality 39 Brand image Brand image 39 18% 24% Word of mouth Word of mouth 30 Sales force 23% influenceSales force influence 32 As per the table, Quality and Brand image are given top priority. Sales force influence is also given some preference
  26. 26. SATISFACTION LEVEL WITH UNIPLY Responses No. of resp. Satisfaction level of UNIPLY usersHighly dissatisfied 1 6 5 dissatisfied 0 4 3 neither nor 3 2 1 No. of resp. satisfied 6 0 highly satisfied 1 By this, we can see that the satisfaction level is above the average level.
  27. 27. REPORT OF SALES
  28. 28. COUNTER SALES Brands % of Sales Counter Sales Kitply 14 Kitply Uniply 22 Sharon 37% 14% Greenply 27 Uniply 22% Sharon 37 Greenply 27% In case of counter sales, Sharon comes first, followedby Greenply. Uniply also has a reasonable share incounter sales.
  29. 29. PROJECT SALES Brands % of Sales Project Sales Century 35 Sharon Kitply Uniply 33 Orchid 11% 1% Century 35% Archid 20 20% Sharon 11 Uniply 33% Kitply 1 In case of Project sales, Century leads the marketfollowed by Uniply with a minor deviation. Archid has agood market.
  30. 30. OVERALL SALESBrands Value(in lacs) % of Sales Overall sales Sharon 35 19 Kitply Sharon 11% 19%Century 29.5 16 Greenply Century Uniply 46 25 29% 16% UniplyGreenply 53.25 29 25% Kitply 20 11 When comparing for overall sales, Greenply comes first followed by Uniply and then by Sharon. But Greenply and Uniply have a good market.
  31. 31. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
  32. 32. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION• In the case of availability in the counter, Uniply comes in the last place, followed by all the other brands listed. In case of retail sales, Carpenters and Home owners are coming equally for purchase.• If we see the behaviour for the purchase of plywood, mostly consumers ask for ‘Plywood’ only, not specific to any brand. They arrive at a purchase of a certain brand based on their various desired factors. Also 90% of those 34% who ask by brand names, are the carpenters.• Retailers are confident to make the sale of their influencing brand upto 65%. At the same time, more than half of the retailers try to influence the local brands. The main reason is ‘Margin’ which is flexible because those prices are not known to every one.
  33. 33. FINDINGS(Contd.)• By the counter responses, ‘Assam Prestige’ is being asked mostly, while entering the shop. Then Kitply also has more awareness. But if we see the actual purchase, unbranded plywoods get the first rank, followed by Assam prestige. This is not in volume, just in number of responses. But in case of large consumers, Kitply has more awareness followed by Sharon and Uniply.• These large consumers have good perception on Greenply followed by Uniply. In case of Share of mind, Kitply has its best lead. But it has a poor credits for share of heart. It may be because of its non-availability. Sharon has a good lead in share of heart, followed by Century and Uniply.
  34. 34. FINDINGS(Contd.)• These consumers are very less brand loyal. They rely mostly on the factors like Word of mouth, Attitude of others for purchase decision. Brand image is also given some preference I.e., they need a source for reliability.• Sharon, Century and Uniply have a good market at present whereas, Kitply and Greenply had in the past.• Price and Quality are given equal weightage for Brand switching. Sales force influence also has some impact.• In case of sales, Sharon comes first in counter sales, from the list of leading brands. Then comes Greenply followed by Uniply. But if we go for the larger consumption like project, Uniply and Century have the lead followed by Archid and Sharon
  35. 35. SUGGESTIONS• The management should try to capture more retailers/dealers, so that Uniply should reach the ‘extensive distribution’ stage. It should try to reach the minor market also I.e., not only in Choolai, Mint, Icehouse.• The management should try to have close relationship with all the dealers, more than that of rivals have with their owns.• The sales force should be often controlled and monitored to get more order, which may please the dealers. Since Sales force influence has reasonable impact on preference for Uniply and for brand switching.
  36. 36. SUGGESTIONS(Contd.)• Advertising Campaign should be modernized to show the standards of the product. Advertising through electronic media and transit advertising like back to MTC buses, Bus shelters, can be implemented
  37. 37. SUGGESTIONS(Contd.)• As an effective expense, at least 4 to 5 big hoardings should be launched in the signals. This strategy will increase the self-satisfaction of existing users of UNIPLY which may induce for repurchase I.e., retention and memorability.• In order to come close to the dealers and to have close eyes with the market, the company should organize dealers and carpenters meet regularly.
  38. 38. LIMITATIONS• The study is restricted to Chennai city only.• The leading brands such as Kitply, Uniply, Greenply and Sharon were only analysed.• For the sample of end users, senior carpentry supervisors for large consuming applications like hotels, commercial establishments, exclusive offices, high quality residences, were only interviewed.• For the sample of retailers, those who are dealing with the leading brands were studied.
  39. 39. LIMITATIONS(Contd.)• Mostly, the retailers have dealership for utmost two brands of the first grade. Hence dealers’ bias should be taken into account.• The findings are opt to this period only. Since the sites for the future period may go for consumption of different brands.
  40. 40. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES FOR UNIPLY
  41. 41. STRENGTHS• Brand image• Quality standards i.e., specifications• Good marketing Team• Share of mind equals the share of heart• An aggressive and well monitored marketing team Good place in Project Sales i.e., huge consumption
  42. 42. WEAKNESSES• Lack in distribution coverage• Advertising strategies are not updated and modernized.• Lack of brand image in retail consumers’ mind.
  43. 43. THE END

×