MBA Project (Smijin .P.S)

A STUDY ON BRAND EQUITY AMONG THE DEALERS OF THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE Ltd (FACT), COCHIN
A PROECT REPORT Submitted By
SMIJIN.P.S
Reg. No:-100109072
Under the guidance of
Mr. G.PRITHIVIRAJ
Project work Submitted to Hindustan University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In

MARKETING & HR
HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLGY & SCIENCE CHENNAI 603 103 APRIL-2012
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE Certified that this project report A STUDY ON BRAND EQUITY AMONG THE DEALERS OF THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE Ltd (FACT), is the bonafide work of SMIJIN .P.S 1000109072 who carried out the project work under my supervision during the academic year 2012.
Prof. Gopichander Head of the Department School of Management
Mr G. Prithiviraj Teaching Research Associate, Project Guide School of Management
INTERNAL EXAMINER
EXTERNAL EXAMINER
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the project entitled BRAND EQUITY AMONG THE DEALERS OF THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE Ltd (FACT) submitted to the HITS in the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION is the record of original work done by me under the guidance of Mr G. PRITHIVIRAJ faculty HINDUSTAN UNIVERSITY, Chennai during the period of 09-01-2012 to 07-04-2012
PLACE: CHENNAI DATE:
SMIJIN .P.S
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At first I would like to thank Almighty God for giving the power and patience to complete the project work in a successful way. I am very much thankful to DR. ELIZABETH VARGHESE respected Chancellor for giving us the opportunity to do the project. I am very much thankful to Dr. SARUKESI, our Vice Chancellor of HINDUSTAN UNIVERSITY. I thank MR. P. RAMANATH, Director, School of Management Hindustan University for providing the requisite facilities to undertake this project. I am very much thankful to MR. M.L.GOPICHANDER, our beloved Head of the Department of MBA, HITS I am very much thankful to my project guide MR. G.PRITHVIRAJ & other faculties in Department of Business Administration, HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, for their valuable guidance during the course of project. I happily record my abiding gratitude to the MR. THOMAS PAUL, CHIEF DISTRIBUTION MANAGER.FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS
TRAVANCORE LTD, who has spared his valuable time in giving sophisticated suggestion, cooperation and untiring effort without which, this project work would not have been prepared so well. I would also express my thanks to all people who have helped me in the successful completion of this project.
SMIJIN.P.S
ABSTRACT
The project emphasizes the study on BRAND EQUITY AMONG THE DEALERS OF THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE Ltd (FACT). Brand equity, as first defined by Farquhar (1989), is the added value with which a given brand endows a product. The FACT was set up in 1943 for the manufacture and marketing of fertilizers, chemicals and caprolactum. It also undertakes engineering consultancy and fabrication of equipment. There are two manufacturing divisions - the FACT Udyogamandal Complex (UC) which began in 1947, and the Cochin Division (CD). This project was carried out to measure BRAND EQUITY of FACT products. The model for the present study was adopted from Mr. Chieng Fayrene Y.L & Mr. Goi Chai Lee (Curtin University of Technology, Malaysia -2011).The 4 dimensions for the present study was Brand Awareness, Brand Association, Perceived Quality and Brand Loyalty. The objective of the study was to find out the brand equity of FACT products among the dealers and to compare the brand of FACT with two other major competitors. .A structural questionnaire was prepared in order to collect information from the dealers. The study used a quantitative descriptive approach to determine whether FACT has high brand equity than other two major competitors. The result of the study indicates that FACT has high brand equity than the two major leading competitors.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO
1
TITLE
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Theoretical background 1.2 Scope of the study 1.3 Objective of the study 1.4 Limitation of the study
PAGE NO
1-4 5 5 5
INDUSTRY AND COMPANY PROFILES 2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE 6-9
2.2 COMPANY PROFILE REVIEW OF LITERATURE
10-20
21-26
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
27-31
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
32-73
FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS
74
CONCLUSION
75
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
TABLE NO
2.1 2.2 2.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
LIST OF TABLES
BRIEF PICTURE OF FACT MILESTONES OF FACT MAJOR COMPETITORS OF FACT ANNUAL APPROXIMATE TURNOVER PRODUCT MIX OFFERED PRODUCTS OTHER THAN FERTILIZERS ANNUAL SALES TURNOVER OF FERTILIZERS
PAGE NO
16 17 20 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 58 59 59
SHARE OF THE FOLLOWING FERTILIZERS
5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17
BRAND AWARENESS OF FACT, MFL AND KRIBHCO
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON PERCEPTION
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON DEALERS TRUST BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON DISTINCTIVENESS BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON SALES PROMOTION BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON MARGIN BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON PERCIVED QUALITY
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON THE LOYALTY
WITHIN-SUBJECTS FACTOR (BRAND AWARENESS) DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (BRAND AWARENESS) MAUCHLYS TEST SPHERCITY (BRAND AWARENESS) TESTS OF WITHIN-SUBJECTS EFFECTS (BRAND AWARENESS)
5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25
PAIRWISE COMPARISON (BRAND AWARENESS)
60 62 62 63 63 64 66 66 67
WITHIN-SUBJECTS FACTOR (BRAND ASSOCIATION)
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (BRAND ASSOCIATION)
MAUCHLYS TEST SPHERICITY (BRAND ASSOCIATION)
TESTS OF WITHIN-SUBJECTS EFFECTS (BRAND ASSOCIATION) PAIRWISE COMPARISONS (BRAND ASSOCIATION)
WITHIN-SUBJECTS FACTORS (BRAND QUALITY)
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (BRAND QUALITY)
5.26
MAUCHLYS TEST OF SPHERICTY (BRAND QUALITY)
TESTS OF WITHIN SUBJECTS EFFECTS (BRAND QUALITY)
5.27
67 68
PAIRWISE COMPARISONS (BRAND QUALITY)
5.28
5.29
WITHIN-SUBJECTS FACTORS (BRAND LOYALTY)
70
5.30 5.31
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (BRAND LOYALTY) MAUCHLS TEST OF SHERICITY (BRAND LOYALTY)
70 71
5.32 5.33
TESTS OF WITHIN-SUBJECTS EFFECTS (BRAND LOYALTY)
71
PAIRWISE COMPARISONS (BRAND LOYALTY)
72
FIGURE NO
2.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18
LIST OF FIGURES
COMAPANY LOGO ANNUAL APPROXIMATE TURNOVER PRODUCT MIX OFFERED PRODUCTS OTHER THAN FERTILIZERS ANNUAL SALES TURNOVER OF FERTILIZERS SHARE OF THE FOLLOWING FERTILIZERS BRAND AWARENESS OF FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO (DEALAERS PREFERENCE) BRAND AWARENESS OF FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO(FARMERS PREFERENCE) BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON PERCEPTION BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON DEALERS TRUST BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON DISTINCTIVENESS BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON SALES PROMOTION BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON MARGIN
PAGE NO
18 33 35 37 39 41 43 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 61 63 69 73
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASSED ON PERCIVED QUALITY
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON LOYALTY
ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS OF AWARENESS
ESTIMATED MARGINA MEANS OF ASSOCIATION
ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEAN OF QUALITY
ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS OF LOYALTY
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
10
CHAPTER 2 INDUSTRY AND COMPANY PROFILES
11
CHAPTER 3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
12
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
13
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
14
CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS
15
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION
16
REFERENCES
17
APPENDIX
18
1.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND BRAND EQUITY

Brand equity, as first defined by Farquhar (1989), is the added value with which a given brand endows a product (FARQUHAR, PETER H. (1989), Managing Brand
Equity, Marketing Research, 1 (September),
p. 24). Apart from Farquhars first
definition of brand equity, other definitions have appeared. According to Lassar, Mittal, and Sharma (1995), brand equity has been examined from a financial (Farquhar, Han, and Ijiri 1991; Simon and Sullivan 1993; Kapferer 1997, Doyle 2001b), and a customer-based perspective (Keller 1993; Shocker, Srivastava, and Rueckert 1994; Chen 2001). In other words, financial meaning from the perspective of the value of the brand to the firm, and customer-based meaning the value of the brand for the customer which comes from a marketing decisionmaking context (Kim, Kim, and An 2003). Brand equity has also been defined as the enhancement in the perceived utility and desirability a brand name confers on a product (Lassar, Mittal and Sharma 1995, p. 13). High brand equity is considered to be a competitive advantage since: it implies that firms can charge a premium; there is an increase in customer demand; extending a brand becomes easier; communication campaigns are more effective; there is better trade leverage; margins can be greater; and the company becomes less vulnerable to competition (Bendixen, Bukasa, and Abratt 2003). In other words, high brand equity generates a differential effect, higher brand knowledge, and a larger consumer response (Keller 2003a), which normally leads to better brand performance, both from a financial and a customer perspective. I. Financial Perspective
Financial value-based techniques extract the brand equity value from the value of the firms other assets (Kim, Kim, and An 2003). Simon and Sullivan (1993) define brand equity as the incremental cash flows which accrue to branded
19
products over and above the cash flows which would result from the sale of unbranded products These authors estimate a firms brand equity by deriving financial market estimates from brand-related profits. Taking the financial market value of a firm as a base, they extract the firms brand equity from the value of the firms other tangible and intangible assets, which results in an estimate based on the firms future cash flows. Along the same line of thought, Doyle (2001b) argues that brand equity is reflected by the ability of brands to create value by accelerating growth and enhancing prices. In other words, brands function as an important driver of cash flow.
II.
Customer Perspective
According to Lassar, Mittal and Sharma (1995), five dimensions configure brand equity: performance, value, social image, trustworthiness, and commitment. Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) define brand equity as brand assets linked to a brands name and symbol that add to, or subtract from, a product or service. According to them, these assets can be grouped into four dimensions: brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and brand loyalty. These dimensions have been commonly used and accepted by many researchers (Keller 1993; Motameni and Shahrokhi 1998; Yoo and Donthu 2001; Bendixen, Bukasa, and Abratt 2003; Kim, Kim, and An 2003). Brand awareness affects perceptions and taste: people like the familiar and are prepared to ascribe all sorts of good attitudes to items that are familiar to them (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000, p. 17). Perceived quality influences brand associations and affects brand profitability. Brand associations are anything that connects the consumer to the brand, including user imagery, product attributes, organizational associations, brand personality, and symbols (p. 17). Brand loyalty is at the heart of brands value. The concept is to strengthen the size and intensity of each loyalty segment (p. 17). Any way that brand equity is considered, it can be understood as the incremental value a brand name grants a product (Srivastava and Shocker 1991).
20
Keller (1993) introduces the Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) model, which approaches brand equity form the perspective of the consumer -whether it be an individual or an organization (Keller 2003a, p. 59). The model is based on the premise that the power of a brand lies in what customers have learned, felt, seen and heard about the brand as a result of their experiences over time (p. 59). He defines CBBE as the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand (p. 60), which emerges from two sources: brand awareness and brand Image. According to Keller (2003a), brand awareness consists of brand recognition the consumers ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given a brand as a cue (p. 67) - and brand recall -the consumers ability to retrieve the brand form memory when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or a purchase or usage situation as cue (p. 67). On the other hand, brand image is created by marketing programs that link strong, favorable, and unique associations to the brand in the memory (p. 70). These associations are not only controlled by the marketing program, but also through direct experience, brand information, word of mouth, assumptions of the brand itself -name, logo-, or with the brands identification with a certain company, country, distribution channel, person, place or event. The way to build a strong brand, according to the CBBE model, is by following four sequential steps, each one representing a fundamental question that customers ask about brands: 1) Ensuring the identification of the brand with a specific product category or need in the customers mind -who are you?, 2) Establishing the meaning of the brand in the customers mind by strategically linking tangible and intangible brand associations with certain properties -what are you? 3) Eliciting customer responses to the brand identification and meaning what about you? 4) Converting the response into an active, intense and loyal relationship between the customers and the brand -what about you and me? The CBBE model is built by sequentially establishing six brand building blocks with customers (Keller 2003a. p. 75) that can be assembled as a brand pyramid. Brand salience relates to the awareness of the brand. Brand performance relates to
21
the satisfaction of customers functional needs. Brand imagery relates to the satisfaction of customers psychological needs. Brand judgments focus on customers opinions based on performance and imagery. Brand feelings are the customers emotional responses and reactions to the brand. Brand resonance is the relationship and level of identification of the customer with a brand.
III.
Combined Perspective
Some authors have linked both the financial and the customer-based perspectives of brand equity. Motameni and Shahrokhi (1998) developed a model called Global Brand Equity (GBE) that estimates brand equity and shows its sources of value. They use an interdisciplinary approach that is able to quantify value components and apply financial techniques. Baldauf, Cravens, and Binder (2003) state that cash flow and short-term parameters are what usually firms use as indicators of performance, without considering brand-based performances. In their study, they suggest using perceived quality, brand loyalty, and brand association as measures of brand equity, and they find that firms with higher levels of these measures have higher levels of performance. This confirms the importance of brand equity as an indicator of performance. Dyson, Farr, and Hollis (1996), after recognizing the financial value attached to brands, propose a consumer driven system of measuring equity. They argue that economic value is created in transactions which are the source of equity. Therefore, they developed a model called the Consumer Value Model that predicts transactions in order to bridge the gap between the intangible perceptions and the tangible revenues generated by a brand.
22
1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study measure the brand equity of FACT products among the dealers. The study will help the organization to know the dealers attitude towards FACT products in Ernakulum district. The study will also help the organization to know its position among the competitors.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Primary Objective: To find out the brand equity of FACT products among the dealers.
Secondary Objective To compare the brand of FACT with two other major competitors
1.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The success of the project under discussion depends on a few factors, which may limit the scope of the study. The various possible limitations in the way of completing the project could be
Dealers opinion is susceptible to change. Dependency and reliability of secondary data sources. Non-cooperation from dealers
23
2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

The most necessary requirement of human being is food. The accelerated
population growth in a nation needs remarkable expansion of food production from time to time. Agriculture must rely upon a primary source for increase in food production. India is the third largest producer and consumer of chemical fertilizers in the world and accounts for about 12 % of world fertilizer consumption. The country produces several straight nitrogenous fertilizers like Urea, Ammonium Sulphate, Calcium Ammonium Nitrate etc., as well as complex fertilizers such as DiAmmonium Phosphate (DAP) and several NPK complexes. Urea and DAP are the main fertilizers produced in India. Fertilizer and chemical industry in India is undergoing major transformation. The industry is gradually being decontrolled. Administrating price also being replaced by market determined pricing. Being recession and consequent decline in prices of certain inputs and finished products in international markets made its domestic products costly and uncompetitive. Fertilizer is any organic or inorganic material, natural or synthetic, put in the soil to improve the quality of plant growth. As per the fertilizer control order,
fertilizer means any substance used or intended to be used as a fertilizer of soil or crop and includes a mixture of fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers are divided into three groups nutrient elements. They are,
Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium.
2.1.1 GROWTH OF FERTILIZER INDUSTRY

The fertilizer industry had very humble in 1906, when the first unit of Single Super Phosphate (SSP) was set up in Ranipet near Chennai with an annual capacity of 6000 Metric Ton (MT). The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore
24
Limited (FACT) at cochin in Kerala and Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI) in Sindri, Bihar were the first large sized fertilizer plants set up in 1940 and 1950 with a view to establish an industrial base to achieve self-growth of fertilizer industry in India. India is the third largest producer and consumer of fertilizer in the world with an installed capacity of Nitrogen (N) and Phosphate (P) nutrients at 14 million tons. The rapid building up of fertilizer capacity has been achieved as result of favorable policy environment facilitating large investment in public, co-operative fertilizer plants in the country manufacturing Ammonium sulphate, Calcium Ammonium sulphate (CAN) and other low graded nitrogenous fertilizers. Besides there are about 64 medium and small scale units in operation producing SSP. The continuing growth in population calls for an increase in food grain production from its current level of 282 million tons to about 240 tons per annum in the next five years. In fact of serious invitations on increasing land area to be rising from productivity, fertilizers are on essential input for increasing productivity of food grains and other agricultural crops with installed capacity of about 14 million tons per annum. The fertilizer industry in India has played a pivotal role in facilitating the required increase in the use of plant nutrients for achieving the goal of self-sufficiency in food grains production on one hand rapid and sustained agricultural growth on the other. At present, there are 64 large size fertilizer units in the country.
Manufacturing a wide range of nitrogenous products, 18 units produce Di Ammonium Phosphate (DAP), straight nitrogenous fertilizers and complex fertilizers and 9 or above units produce Ammonium Sulphate as by product. Besides, there are about 79 small and medium scale units producing Single Super Phosphate. The problem of industry in India are seasonal demand for its products, necessity of huge working capital, long credit period enjoyed buyers and constant clamor of the environmentalists lobby for slashing the use of chemical fertilizers. It is unfortunate that fertilizer industry has been a victim in the past under the controlled pricing subsidy reign of the government. The central government had
25
always controlled it with budgetary constraints while on the other side government political never permits any realistic decisions. Lack of inter-ministerial co-
ordination has also jotted the industry by the way of recently introduced customs duty on imported raw materials. As a result of policy changes by government, the basic principles of RPS (Retention Pricing Scheme) has been last and currently appears to innovate rewarding the efficiency of industry. Earlier the Indian fertilizer industries were under the closed regulation of government. But after the implementation of License Raj which gives the right to expert minimum capacity, then the Indian fertilizer industry has got the new face which can easily import foreign technologies through globalization and liberalization policies of the government. In India most of the fertilizer companies are in government sector. There are some companies operating in co-operative or semi-government sections and in private sectors.
2.1.2 TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS

To meet the growing demand of fertilizers in the country, indigenous production, self-reliance in design, engineering and execution of fertilizer projects are very crucial. This require a strong indigenous technological Pricing, development of process, know how design engineering and expertise in project management and execution of project with the continuing support of government of India for research and development as well as design engineering activities. Over the years Indian Consultancy organizations such as Project and Development India Ltd (PDIL) and Fact Engineering and Design Organization (FEDO) have grown steadily intender with the fertilizer Industry. These consultancy organization are today in a position to undertake the executive of fertilizer projects starting from concept/designing to commissioning of fertilizer plants both in India and abroad.
26
2.1.3 FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (FAI):

The Fertilizer Association of India (FAI) was set up in 1955, and registered as a company. FAI is the national representative body of all fertilizer manufacturers in India comprising public, private, joint and cooperative sectors. It is a non-profit, non-trading organization of fertilizer manufactures distributors, technologists, plant or equipment manufacturers, research institutes and others interested in fertilizers. Main object of FAI is to bring together all concerned with the production, marketing and use of fertilizers with a view of promoting solution of industry problems, to assist industry in improving its operative efficiency and to promote the most productive use of balanced fertilizers for raising agricultural productivity.
2.1.4 OBJECTIVES OF FAI:

To unite those engaged in Fertilizer industry To promote consideration and discussion of all questions that contribute to sound agricultural practices and to the economic development of fertilizer and agricultural industries To institute, prosecute, develop and carry on scientific and economic research regarding preparation of fertilizers, increasing soil fertility and crop production. To improve practices within the country in the production and distribution of fertilizers. To encourage the use of more and better plant foods. To seek to obtain more efficient use of fertilizers of all types. To make the cultivators aware of the benefits of fertilizer use.
27
2.2 COMPANY PROFILE

The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) was incorporated in 1943. In1947 FACT started production of Ammonium Sulphate with an installed capacity of 10,000 MT per annum at Udyogamandal, near Cochin. In the year 1960, FACT became a PSU and towards the end of 1962, Government of India became the major shareholder. From a modest beginning, FACT has grown and diversified into a multidivision/multi-function Organization with basic interest in manufacture and marketing of Fertilizers and Petrochemicals, Engineering Consultancy and Design and in Fabrication and Erection of Industrial Equipments. 2.2.1 MISSION OF FACT: To function as a dependable and globally competitive producer of fertilizer and other allied products and to develop self-reliance in the field of engineering and technology, especially in the field of fertilizers, chemicals, petrochemical, oil & gas industries. 2.2.2 VISSION OF FACT: To emerge as a leading company in the business of providing quality agriculture and industrial inputs and providing engineering services for industrial and infrastructural facilities. 2.2.3 CORPORATE OBJECTIVES: To be of service to the nation and to contribute effectively to its economic well-being and growth through the production and marketing of fertilizers and chemicals and through the acquisitions/development and dissemination of engineering technology know-how and skills.
28
To sustain and improve its pioneering role in the development of indigenous engineering and technology through research and development To improve productivity and maintain high standards of quality and adopt effective measures for controlling cost and minimizing dependence on imports To ensure for its customers the availability of its products and services on reasonable terms, for its shareholders a fair return on capital invested and, for itself, development of adequate internal resources for continual growth and expansion.
To actively work for rural uplift through guidance, advice and service to the farmers in co-operation with all other agencies working for agriculture development and allied activities.
To project a favorable image of the company and its operations, in the society in which it operates, amongst its customers and suppliers and amongst the public in general
To provide services to the farming community by organizing technical training, soil testing and other productivity improvement services in agriculture.
2.2.4 HISTORY OF FACT: Mans history is replete with revolutions, responsible for molding his system of thought and shaping his modes of living. Revolutions have, more often than not, emerged out of crisis-situations it was one such crisis situation that guided the enlightened perception of a far sighted visionary to form FACT. Yes! The FERTILISER AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORELIMITED-popularly known as FACT-was indeed a revolution when it was established as the first large scale fertilizer factory in the country. Since then, it has played a major role in creating fertilizer consciousness among our farmers, and giving a positive direction to the modernization of agriculture in India. And that, of course is an interesting story-a story of never ending challenges and constructive responses.
29
2.2.4.1 The beginning The 1940,s were a time of critical food shortage in our country. The traditional approach to cultivation was not of much help in finding a solution to this problem. And nitrogenous fertilizer had not yet arrived on the agriculture scene in sufficient quantities to make any perceptible impact. A revolution was indeed necessary to change the status quo. And when it came, it did through the vision of Dr. C.P. Ram swami Aiyar, the Dewan of the former Travancore State, who mooted the idea of increasing food production by the application of fertilizer as a long term solution to food problem. To give concrete shape to his idea, he sought the help of Seshayee Brothers Ltd. Industrialist known for their pioneering work. And Indias first large-scale fertilizer plant was set up in 1944 at Udyogamandal on the banks of the river periyar in Kerala State. The new venture of course had to go through many teething troubles. For instance, the raw materials necessary for the production of ammonium salts were not available in the state. But this deficiency was overcome by adopting a revolutionary method known as the FIREWOOD GASIFICATION PROCESS. However, initial difficulties notwithstanding, the plant at Udyogamandal went into commercial production in 1947, with the slated capacity to manufacture 50,000 tonnes of Ammonium Sulphate (10,000 tonnes of N). This was followed by the production of SUPERPHOSPHATE in a new plant with a capacity of 44,000 tonnes. A sulphuric acid plant of 75 tonnes per day was also installed which was considered large going standard at that time. Meanwhile the inner dynamics of FACT was finding another expression in the formation of new unit with the help of the State Government and Methur Chemical & Industrial Corporation Ltd., for the production of caustic soda which later become todays Travancore-Cochin Chemical Ltd., a Kerala Government undertaking. This indeed was a big leap forward as it replaced all the imports of that product, saving a considerable amount of foreign exchange. FACT was the first to use its by-product, chlorine, as hydrochloric acid to produce Ammonium Chloride. These by-products produced by FACT paved the way for setting up of other industrial
30
units around the FACT complex viz. Hindustan Insecticide Ltd. Indian Rare Earth Ltd., etc. 2.2.4.2 Expansion In the late 50s, the Udyogamandalam Division launched its first expansion with an outlay of Rs. 3 crores. Highlights of the period were the installation of two plants to produce Phosphoric Acid and Ammonium Phosphate (16:20 Grade). The second stage of expansion involving Rs. 2 crores saw the replacement of the Firewood Gasification Process and the Electrolytic Process by the Texaco Oil Gasification Process for which a new plant was set up. FACT became a Kerala State Public Sector Enterprise on 15th August1960. On 21st November 1962, the Government of India became the major shareholder. The 2nd stage of expansion of FACT was completed in 1962. The 3rd stage of expansion of FACT was completed in 1965 with setting up of a new Ammonium Sulphate Plant. FACT has been a pace-setter in marketing evolving a continuous and comprehensive package of effective communication with farmers and promotional programs to increase the fertilizer consciousness among our farmers. In fact, FACT was the first fertilizer manufacturer in India to introduce the village adoption concept since 1968 to improve agricultural productivity and enhance the overall socio-economic status of farmers. FACT has a well-organized marking network, capable of distribution over a million tonnes of fertilizers. With the licensing of Cochin Division in 1966 FACT further expanded and by 1976 the production of sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid and Urea was started. In 1979 Production of NPK was commercialized.
31
2.2.4.3 Technical Divisions FACT Engineering and Design Organization (FEDO) was established in1965 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 Petrochemicals and other areas also. It offers multifarious services from project identification and evaluation stage to plant design, procurement project management, site supervision, commissioning and operating new plants as well as revamping and modernization of old plants. FEDO received international accreditation ISO 9001 2004 for quality system standards covering areas of consultancy, design & engineering services for construction of large fertilizer, petrochemicals, chemicals and related projects including purchasing, construction, supervisor, inspection and expediting services. FACT Engineering Works (FEW) was established on 13th April 1966 as a unit to fabricate and install equipment for fertilizer plants. FEW were originally conceived as a unit to fabricate and install equipment for FACTs own plants. Over the year it developed capabilities in the manufacture of class I pressure vessels, heat exchangers, and rail mounted LPG tank wagons etc. It has a wellequipped workshop approved by Lloyds Register of Shipping, further; this division has excelled in laying cross country piping fabrication and installation of large penstocks for hydel units in Kerala. The Cochin Division of FACT, the 2nd production unit was set up at Ambalamedu and the 1st phase was commissioned in 1973. The 2ndphase of FACT Cochin Division was commissioned in 1976. The project was designed to produce Ammonia which would be converted to Urea and also to produce high analysis, water soluble NP fertilizers. This division comprises of a number of large capacity plants to produce Ammonia, Urea, Sulphuric Acid, Phosphoric Acid and Fertilizers like FACTAMPHOS 20-20and DAP 18-46.
32
FACT has also a Research & development Department which carries out research related to fertilizers. This Division is also capable of doing fundamental research in areas of fertilizers and chemicals technology. So far FACT R & D has taken 17 patents in areas like Sodium Fluoride, Sulphuric Acid and Ammonium Phosphate 2.2.4.4 Breakthrough FACT took a major breakthrough, when its 50,000 TPA plant of Caprolactum was commissioned in 1990 as a major diversification plan from our traditional field of fertilizers and allied chemicals. The plant with a capacity outlay of Rs. 368 crores utilizes the most modern technology and the product is acknowledge as one of the best in the world. It also produces 2, 25,000 tonnes per Ammonium Sulphate as co-product. Subsequently, FACT set up a 900 TPD Ammonia plant at Udyogamandal with an investment of Rs 618 crores. This replaced the old Ammonia plant of Udyogamandal Division. The plant commissioned in 1998.FACT has been entering into a Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU) with the ministry of chemicals and fertilizers every year. This is as per the guidelines of DPE, Ministry of finance GOI. The objective of FACT is to achieve excellence in performance as per the MOU agreement.
33
Table no: 2.1 BRIEF PICTURE OF FACT:
34
Table no: 2.2 MILESTONES OF FACT

22-09-1943 26-06-1947 15-08-1960 21-08-1962 16-03-1964 15-10-1966 01-10-1973 24-07-1965 13-04-1966 07-06-1966 27-04-1973 10-11-1976 10-12-1976 10-01-1977 18-05-1984 14-09-1984 19-12-1986 06-07-1989 20-12-1990 01-03-1991 25-09-1993 22-03-1998 In Corporation Production started FACT came under public sector Govt. of India major shareholder on 1st stage expansion completed. ICMA award for utilizing the byproduct gypsum UD 4th stage expansion completed UD 4th 150 TPD Ammonium Phosphate FACT Engineering and Design Organization FACT Engineering works CD Phase license issued CD urea plant commissioned CD 2nd sulphuric acid plant commissioned CD 2nd Phosphoric acid plant commissioned CD 2nd NPK commercial production started PD Caprolactum technical collaboration Agreement Pd Zero date of ASCL Project Few shifted to Palluruthy Award for excellence in performance 1986/7 from PM of India. CD 12MW captive power plant PD Caprolactum commercial production started Foundation stone-900 TPA /Ammonia Plant 900 TPA Ammonia Plant commercial productions
35
2.2.5 OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS 2.2.5.1 Opportunities High capacity utilization of plants and operational efficiency. Internal technologies for competitive activities. Strong marketing network in Southern India. Strong presence in the complex fertilizer segment. Well qualified and experienced human resources. 2220 acres of land and infrastructure facilities. External markets orientation for FEDO and FEW.
2.2.5.2Threats Stiff global competition in corporate market and downward trend in international prices of Caprolactum. Raw material prices are based on international market dynamics resulting in limitations in forecasting and control. Increasing competition in marketing of complex fertilizers.
2.2.6 SALES PROMOTION PROGRAMS IN FACT Audio visuals. Fertilizer advertisement on newspaper, radio, TV. Farmer Contract programs. Villa adoption programs. Farmer meetings. Soil testing service. Fixed demonstration. Fertilizer stalls at exhibition. Chop booklets, posters, stickers. Cultural programs. Farmer Seminars. Cash rebates and incentives.
Fig. 2.1 COMPANY LOGO
36
2.2.7 PRODUCTS a) Finished products

Ammonium Sulphate- Udyogamandal Division Ammonium Phosphate/ Complex fertilizers / Factamfos Udyogamandal Division & Cochin Division Caprolactum- Petrochemical Division Bio fertilizers - Research & Development Division
b) Exported Products
Caprolactum - Petrochemical Division Ammonium Sulphate - Udyogamandal Division
c) Byproducts
Nitric Acid & Soda Ash- Petrochemical Division Gypsum - Udyogamandal Division & Cochin Division Carbon Dioxide Gas - Udyogamandal
d) Intermediary Products
Ammonia - Udyogamandal & Cochin Division Synthesis Gas - Udyogamandal Division Sulphuric Acid- Udyogamandal & Cochin Division Oleum - Udyogamandal Divisions Gas - Udyogamandal Division Phosphoric Acid - Udyogamandal & Cochin Division
37
Table no: 2.3 MAJOR COMPETITORS OF FACT: SPIC MFL RCF MCF CFL Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited Madras Fertilizers Limited Rashtriya Chemicals and fertilizers Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Coromendal Fertilizers Limited
KRIBHCO Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited IFFCO Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited
38
3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This model was developed by Mr. Chieng Fayrene Y.L & Mr. Goi Chai Lee (Curtin University of Technology, Malaysia- 2011) was used as the central framework for the present study.
3.1 A Framework for Measuring Customer & Dealer-Based Brand Equity
Brand equity is defined as the value that consumers associate with a brand (Aaker 1991). 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 (Lassar et al.1995). A conceptual framework for measuring customer-based brand equity is developed by using the conceptualization of Aakers four dimensions of brand equity.
3.2 Four Dimensions of Brand Equity
3.2.1 Brand Awareness Awareness is a key determinant identified in almost all brand equity models (Aaker 1991, Kapferer 1991, Keller 1992, Agarwal and Rao 1996, Krishnan 1996, Na, Marshall and Keller 1999, Mackay 2001). Keller (2003, p.76) defines awareness as the customers ability to recall and recognize the brand as reflected by their ability to identify the brand under different conditions and to link the brand name, logo, symbol, and so forth to certain associations in memory. Aaker (1996) identifies other higher levels of awareness besides recognition and recall (Aaker 1991). He includes top-of-mind, brand dominance, brand knowledge and brand opinion. Brand knowledge is the full set of brand associations linked to the brand (Keller, 1993). According to Aaker (1996), for new or niche brands, recognition can be important. For well-known brands recall and top-of-mind are more sensitive and
39
meaningful. Brand knowledge and brand opinion can be used in part to enhance the measurement of brand recall. Similar measures are used by the Y&R and Total Research efforts. Aaker conceptualizes brand awareness must precede brand associations. That is where a consumer must first be aware of the brand in order to develop a set of associations (Washburn and Plank 2002). 3.2.2 Brand Associations A brand association is the most accepted aspect of brand equity (Aaker 1992). Associations represent the basis for purchase decision and for brand loyalty (Aaker 1991, p. 109). Brand associations consist of all brand-related thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, experiences, beliefs, attitudes (Kotler and Keller 2006, p. 188) and is anything linked in memory to a brand. Other researchers (Farquhar & Herr 1993, Chen, 1996, Brown & Dacin 1997, Biel 1992) identify different types of association that contribute to the brand equity. Chen (2001) categorized two types of brand associations - product associations and organizational associations.
3.2.2.1Product Associations Product associations include functional attribute associations and non-functional associations (Chen 2001). Functional attributes are the tangible features of a product (Keller 1993, Hankinson and Cowking 1993, de Chernatony and McWilliam, 1989). While evaluating a brand, consumers link the performance of the functional attributes to the brand (Pitta and Katsanis 1995, Lassar et al. 1995). 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 consumers judgment about a brands fault-free and long-lasting physical operation and flawlessness in the products physical construction (Lassar et al. 1995). Non-functional attributes include symbolic attributes (Aaker 1991, Keller 1993, Farquhar & Herr 1993, Chen 1996, Park et al. 1986) which are the intangible features that meet consumers needs for social approval, personal expression or self-esteem (Keller 1993, Hankinson and Cowking 1993, de Chernatony and McWilliam 1989, Pitta
40
& Katsanis 1995). Consumers linked social image of a brand, trustworthiness, perceived value, differentiation and country of origin to a brand.
3.2.2.2Social Image Lassar et al. (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 consumers perception of the esteem in which the consumers 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.
3.2.2.3 Perceived Value Value appeared in several brand equity models (Feldwick 1996, Martin and Brown 1991, Lassar et al. 1995). Lassar et al. (1995) define 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. Consumer choice of a brand depends on a perceived balance between the price of a product and all its utilities (Lassar et al. 1995). A consumer is willing to pay premium prices due to the higher brand equity.
3.2.2.4 Trustworthiness Brand equity models (Martin and Brown 1991, Lassar et al. 1995) regard trustworthiness of a product as an important attribute in assessing the strengths of a brand. Lassar et al. (1995) define trustworthiness as the confidence a consumer places in the firm and the firms communications and as to whether the firms actions would be in the consumers interest. Consumers place high value in the brands that they trust.
3.2.2.5 Differentiation/Distinctiveness The Marketing Science Institute (Leuthesser 1988) states that the underlying determinants of consumer-based brand equity are that brands provide benefits to
41
consumers by differentiating products, as they facilitate the processing and retrieval of information (Hoyer and Brown 1990). Other marketing literatures (Ries and Trout 1985; Kapferer 1991) 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 (Kapferer 1991). A brand can have a price premium if it is perceived as being different from its competitors.
3.2.2.6 Country of origin 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 (p. 27). Country of origin is known to lead to associations in the minds of consumers (Aaker, 1991, Keller, 1993). The country of origin of a product is an extrinsic cue (Thorelli et al. 1989), which, similar to brand name, is known to influence consumers perceptions. Country of origin refers to the country of origin of a firm or a product (Johansson et al. 1985, Ozsomer and Cavusgil 1991), or the country where the product is manufactured or assembled (Bilkey and Nes 1982, Han and Terpstra 1988). Thakor and Kohli (2003) state that less concern should be given to the place where brands manufacture their products, and more to the place where people perceive the brands country of origin to be. Therefore, country of origin in the proposed framework referred to the brands country of origin.
3.2.2.7 Organizational Associations Organizational associations include corporate ability associations, which are those associations related to the companys expertise in producing and delivering its outputs and corporate social responsibility associations, which include organizations activities with respect to its perceived societal obligations (Chen 2001). According to Aaker (1996), consumers consider the organization that is the people, values, and programs that lies behind the brand. Brand-as-organization
42
can be particularly helpful when brands are similar with respect to attributes, when the organization is visible (as in a durable goods or service business), or when a corporate brand is involved. 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 (Blumenthal and Bergstrom 2003). CSR can be defined in terms of legitimate ethics or from an instrumentalist perspective where corporate image is the prime concern (McAdam and Leonard 2003).
3.2.3
Perceived Quality
Perceived quality is viewed as a dimension of brand equity (Aaker 1991; Kapferer 1991; Kamakura and Russell 1991; Martin and Brown 1991; Feldwick 1996) rather than as a part of the overall brand association (Keller 1992; Gordon, di Benedetto and Calantone 1994). Perceived quality is the customers judgment about a products overall excellence or superiority that is different from objective quality (Zeithaml 1988, pp. 3 and 4). Objective quality refers to the technical, measurable and verifiable nature of products/services, processes and quality controls. High objective quality does not necessarily contribute to brand equity (Anselmsson et al. 2007). Since its impossible for consumers to make complete and correct judgments of the objective quality, they use quality attributes that they associate with quality (Olson and Jacoby 1972, Zeithaml 1988, Ophuis and Van Trijp 1995, Richardson et al. 1994; Acebron and Dopico 2000). Perceived quality is hence formed to judge the overall quality of a product/service. Boulding and other researchers (1993) argued that quality is directly influenced by perceptions. Consumers use the quality attributes to infer quality of an unfamiliar product. It is therefore important to understand the relevant quality attributes are with regard to brand equity
43
Zeithaml (1988) and Steenkamp (1997) classify 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. colour, flavour, 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 (Bernues et al.2003). Its difficult to generalize attributes as they are specific to product categories (Olson and Jacoby 1972, Anselmsson et al. 2007)
3.2.4
Brand Loyalty
Loyalty is a core dimension of brand equity. Aaker (1991, p. 39) defines brand loyalty as the attachment that a customer has to a brand. Grembler and Brown (1996) describe different levels of loyalty. Behavioral loyalty is linked to consumer behavior in the marketplace that can be indicated by number of repeated purchases (Keller 1998) or commitment to rebuy the brand as a primary choice (Oliver 1997, 1999). 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 (behavioural loyalty) (Keller 1998). Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001) mention that brand loyalty is directly related to brand price. Aaker (1996) 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.
44
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research methodology is a scientific and systematic way to solve research problems. Researcher has to design his methodology. Research methodology deals with research methods and takes into consideration the logic behind the method. It also deals with objective of research study, the method of defining the problem type of data collected, methods used for collecting and analyzing data. The objective of the present study can be accomplished by conducting a systematic market research. Market research is the systematic design, collection, analysis and reporting of data and findings that are relevant to different marketing situations facing the company. The marketing research process that will be
adopted in the present study consists of the following stages. Setting the research objective Developing the research objectives Collection and source of data Analyze the collected information Report the research findings
4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN:

The Research Design adopted in the study was descriptive in nature because the study aims at describing the situation as it exists at present. In this type research must be able to define clearly , What he wants to measure and must find adequate methods for measuring it along with a clear cut definition of population he want to study . The structural questionnaire was used for collecting the data. The researcher has collected primary data, which was obtained by using a questionnaire specifically designed to fulfill the data needs of the problem. At hand such data are original in character.
45
4.2 SAMPLING POPULATION

Population sampling refers to the process through which a group of representative individuals is selected from a population for the purpose of statistical analysis. Performing population sampling correctly is extremely important, as errors can lead to invalid or misleading data. There are a number of techniques used in popa8ulation sampling to ensure that the individuals can be used to generate data which can in turn be used to make generalizations about a larger population.
4.2.1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

Sample selected for the study was a total of 200 respondents, which includes only dealers level. Sampling method used was systematic random sampling were every 5th person from 200 people was selected for the current study.
4.2.2 SAMPLE SIZE

Sample size selected for the study was a total of 40 respondents.
4.3 DATA COLLECTION

Data collection is a term used to describe a process of preparing and collecting data. The purpose of data collection is to obtain information to keep on record, to make decisions about important issues, to pass information on to others. Both primary and secondary data have been used for the study.
4.3.1 PRIMARY DATA

The primary data have been more extensively used. The method for primary data collection was questionnaires. To make the study more realistic and bring out the correct picture of FACT questionnaire consisting of 14 questions was administered among the dealers.
46
4.3.2 SECONDARY DATA

The secondary data were collected from the company official website and brochures.
4.4 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

Research instrument is a testing device for measuring a given phenomenon, such as a paper and pencil test, a questionnaire, an interview, a research tool, or a set of guidelines for observation.
4.4.1 SCALING TECHNIQUE

The scaling technique used was Simple attitude scale, Numerical ratio method, Top box scoring, multiple choice, Rating scale and Single response. Simple attitude scale : A few questions were in simple attitude scale (yes or no) and multiple choices, single response scaling is to find out the dealers attitude towards various company products. Top box scoring : The top box scores are the highest rating points on a scale that has been used by respondents to indicate their answers to what are typically closedend question item in the survey. A few questions were asked to the dealers regarding the study. Rating scale : Combination words and numbers in a 1 to 5 rating scale provide an effective method for measuring the pluses and minuses of everything. A few questions were used in the questionnaire were based on rating scale
47
4.4.2 PILOT STUDY

A pilot experiment was conducted among 5 dealers in Ernakulum District. A pilot experiment was also called a pilot study, is a small scale preliminary study conducted in order to evaluate feasibility, time, cost, adverse events, and effect size (statistical variability) in an attempt to predict an appropriate sample size and improve upon the study design prior to performance of a full-scale research project. A pilot study was first conducted in order to test the Brand image of FACT
product among the dealers. The main study included an introductory note explaining the questions and purpose of the study.
4.5 DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS

The analysis has been done on the basis of a standardized questionnaire and interview. The tools used for data analysis were Simple Percentage Analysis, Standard Deviation, Average Mean and Repeated Measures ANOVA.
4.5.1 SIMPLE PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS

Percentage refers to a special kind of ratio. Percentage is used in making The percentage method
comparison between two or more series of data.
sometimes used to describe relationship since the percentage reduces everything to a common base and thereby allows meaningful comparison to be made. Simple percentage = No. of Respondents X 100 Total No. of Respondents Sample Size: 40
4.5.2 AVERAGE MEAN

The "mean" is the "average" calculated by adding all of the values together, then dividing by the number of original values.
48
4.5.3 STANDARD DEVIATION

Standard deviation is a widely used measure of variability or diversity used in statistics and probability theory. It shows how much variation or "dispersion" exists from the average (mean, or expected value). A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean, whereas high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values.
4.5.4 REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA

Repeated measures ANOVA are used when all members of a random sample are measured under a number of different conditions. As the sample is exposed to each condition in turn, the measurement of the dependent variable is repeated. Using a standard ANOVA in this case is not appropriate because it fails to model the correlation between the repeated measures: the data violate the ANOVA assumption of independence. Keep in mind that some ANOVA designs combine repeated measures factors and non-repeated factors. If any repeated factor is present, then repeated measures ANOVA should be used.
49
TABLE: 5.1
ANNUAL APPROXIMATE TURN OVER INCLUSIVE OF ALL PRODUCTS
SL. PARTICULARS NO: 1 2 3 4 LESS THAN 10 LAKHS 10 LAKHS-1 CRS 1-5 CRS MORE THAN 5 CRS TOTAL
NO.OF PERCENTAGE RESPONDENTS 7 21 10 2 40 17.5% 52.5% 25% 5% 100%
50
FIGURE: 5.1
ANNUAL APPROXIMATE TURN OVER INCLUSIVE OF ALL PRODUCTS
ANNUAL TURNOVER
5% 25% 17%
less than 10 lakhs. 10 lakhs - 1 crs 1crs - 5 crs more than 5 crs
53%
The table & fig: 5.1 shows annual approximate turnover inclusive of all products, are divided into four categories among 40 respondents. In this most of the dealers have annual approximate turn over between 10 lakhs- 1crs.
51
TABLE: 5.2
PRODUCT MIX OFFERED BY THE DEALERS
RESPONSE SELLING PRODUCT OTHER THAN FERTILIZERS ONLY FERTILIZERS Total
No.of respondent 31 9 40
Percentage 77.5 22.5 100
52
FIGURE: 5.2
PRODUCT MIX OFFERED BY THE DEALERS
PRODUCT OTHER THAN FERTILIZERS

23%
yes no
77%
The table & fig: 5.2 shows the opinion of dealers regarding the products other than fertilizers In this most of the dealers are selling products other than fertilizers like cement, agriculture machineries, safety equipments etc.
53
TABLE: 5.3
PRODUCTS SOLD BY DEALERS OTHER THAN FERTILIZERS
SL. PARTICULARS NO: 1 CEMENT AGRICULTURE 2 MACHINERIES 3 SAFTEY EQUIPMENTS TOTAL
NO.OF PERCENTAGE RESPONDENTS 6 15%
20
50%
14 40
35% 100%
54
FIGURE: 5.3
PRODUCTS OTHER THAN FERTILIZERS INCLUDED IN THE SALES LINE
PRODUCT OTHER THAN FERTILIZERS

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CEMENT NO.OF RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE 6 15
AGRICULTURE MACHINERIES 20 50
SAFTEY EQUIPMENTS 14 35
The table & fig: 5.3 shows products other than fertilizers in the sales line
In this most of the dealers are selling products like agriculture machineries
and safety equipments other than fertilizers
55
TABLE: 5.4
ANNUAL SALES TURNOVER OF FERTILIZERS
SL. PARTICULARS NO: 1 2 3 4 LESS THAN 500 MT 500-2000 MT 2000-5000 MT MORE THAN 5000 MT TOTAL
NO.OF PERCENTAGE RESPONDENTS 8 20 8 4 40 20% 50% 20% 10% 100%
56
FIGURE: 5.4
ANNUAL SALES TURNOVER OF FERTILIZERS
ANNUAL SALES TURNOVER

10% 20% LESS THAN 500 MT 500-2000 MT 2000-5000 MT ABOVE 5000 MT 20%
50%
The table & fig: 5.4 shows annual sales turnover of fertilizers In this most of the dealers having an annual sales turn over between 5002000 MT (50%)
57
TABLE: 5.5
SL. PARTICULARS NO: 1 2 3 STRAIGHT FERTILIZERS

N.P COMPLEXFERTILIZERS
NO.OF PERCENTAGE RESPONDENTS 15 20 5 40 37.5% 50% 5% 100%
MIXTURES TOTAL
58
FIGURE: 5.5
ANNUAL SALES OF DEALERS

12.5% 37.5%
STRAIGHT FERTILIZERS N.P COMPLEX FERTILIZERS
MIXTURES
50%
The table & fig: 5.5 showing approximate share of the following fertilizers in the annual sales of dealers In this dealers prefer N.P COMPLEX FERTILIZERS rather than STRAIGHT FERTILIZERS and MIXTURES
59
TABLE: 5.6
BRAND AWARENESS OF FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO
FACT
TARGET GROUP MIN VALUE DEALERS FARMERS 3 3 MAX VALUE 5 5 AVG VALUE 4.05 3.9 SD MIN VALUE 1 1
MFL
MAX VALUE 4 4 AVG VALUE 2.675 2.825 SD MIN VALUE 1 1
KRIBHCO
MAX VALUE 4 4 AVG VALUE 2.225 2.15 SD
0.814 .810
.858
.919 .863
.930
60
FIGURE: 5.6
BRAND AWARENESS OF FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO
DEALERS PREFERENCE
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 FACT MFL KRIBHCO
MIN VALUE 3 1 1
MAX VALUE 5 4 4
AVG VALUE 4.05 2.675 2.225
SD 0.814 0.858 0.919
FIGURE: 5.7
FARMERS PREFERENCE
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 FACT MFL KRIBHCO
MIN VALUE
3 1 1
MAX VALUE
5 4 4
AVG VALUE
3.9 2.825 2.15
SD
0.81 0.93 0.863
The table & fig 5.6 & fig 5.7 showing Brand Awareness of FACT, MFL and KRIBHCO. In this FACT have high brand awareness rather than MFL & KRIBHCO
61
TABLE: 5.7
FACT
TARGET GROUP MIN VALUE MAX VALUE AVG VALUE SD MIN VALUE
MFL
MAX VALUE AVG VALUE SD MIN VALUE
KRIBHCO
MAX VALUE AVG VALUE SD
DEALERS
3.975
0.861
2.925
.828
2.4
.871
62
FIGURE: 5.8
BASED ON VALUE
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 FACT MFL KRIBHCO MIN VALUE 3 1 1 MAX VALUE 5 4 4 AVG VALUE 3.975 2.925 2.4 SD 0.861 0.828 0.871
The table: 5.7 & fig 5.8 showing the brand of fertilizers based on the perception of value In this FACT have high value compared with other two leading brands.
63
TABLE: 5.8
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON DEALERS TRUST
FACT
MFL
KRIBHCO
DEALERS
3.975
0.800
2.750
.954
2.30
.882
64
FIGURE: 5.9
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON DEALERS TRUST
DEALERS TRUST
The table: 5.8 & fig 5.9 showing brand of fertilizers based on dealers trust
In this dealers have high trust on FACT products rather than the two
leading competitors.
65
TABLE: 5.9
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON DISTINCTIVENESS
FACT
MFL
KRIBHCO
DEALERS
3.975
0.767
2.700
.966
2.175
.873
66
FIGURE: 5.10
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON DISTINCTIVENESS
BASED ON DISTINCTIVENESS
The table 5.9 & fig 5.10 showing the brand of fertilizers based on dealers distinctiveness In this most of the dealers prefer FACT products rather than the two other leading competitors. They choose FACT product because it having more quality rather than any other products in the current market.
67
TABLE: 5.10
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON SALES PROMOTION
FACT
MFL
KRIBHCO
DEALERS
2.075
0.797
3.025
.946
4.075
.858
68
FIGURE: 5.11
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON SALES PROMOTION
SALES PROMOTION
Table: 5.10 & fig 5.11 showing the brand of fertilizers based on the sales promotion
In this FACT sales promotion is much low compared with KRIBHCO and MFL, because FACT product doesnt need any sales promotion techniques to identify/find its customers. FACT products have a high reputation in the minds of customers so; the people keep on buying the same brand repeatedly
69
TABLE: 5.11
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON MARGIN
FACT
MFL
KRIBHCO
DEALERS
3.9750
0.800
2.05
.749
2.500
.933
70
FIGURE: 5.12
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON MARGIN
BASED ON MARGIN
Table: 5.11 & fig 5.12showing brand of fertilizers based on the margin offered to the dealers In this FACT gives more margin to the dealers than the other two companies. Thats why dealers prefer FACT products rather than the other competitive companies.
71
TABLE: 5.12
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON PERCIVED QUALITY
FACT
MFL
KRIBHCO
DEALERS
4.10000
0.841
2.9750
.973
2.550
.845
72
FIGURE: 5.13
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON PERCIVED QUALITY
PERCIVED QUALITY
Table: 5.12 & fig 5.13 showing brand of fertilizers based on the perceived quality In this FACT products having high quality than the other two companies so, dealers prefer FACT rather than the other two companies.
73
TABLE: 5.13
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON THE LOYALTY
FACT
MFL
KRIBHCO
DEALERS
4.10000
0.841
2.9750
.973
2.550
.845
74
FIGURE: 5.14
BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON LOYALTY
LOYALTY
Table: 5.13 & fig 5.14 showing the brand of fertilizers based on the loyalty In this dealers have high repeated patronage on FACT product, because of its high quality products.
75
REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA Comparison of Brand Awareness (1st Dimension of Brand Equity) of FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO
TABLE: 5.14
Within-Subjects Factors
Measure:Awareness Dependent Brand_awareness 1 Variable Brand_Awareness_ FACT 2 Brand_Awareness_ MFL 3 Brand_Awareness_ KRIBHCO
INTERPREPATION Brand awareness of FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO are labeled numerical values 1, 2 &3 TABLE: 5.15
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Brand_Awareness_FACT Brand_Awareness_MFL Brand_Awareness_KRIBHCO 3.9750 2.7500 2.1875 Std. Deviation .78406 .86232 .87477 N 40 40 40
INTERPREPATION The above table indicates the mean brand awareness of FACT (3.9750), MFL (2.75) & KRIBHCO (2.1875)
76
TABLE: 5.16
Mauchly's Test of Sphericity Measure: Awareness Epsilona Within Subjects Effect Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square df Sig. GreenhouseGeisser HuynhFeldt Lowerbound .500
Brand awareness .991 .344 2 .842 .991 1.000 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. b. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Brand awareness
INTERPRETATION Since the approx. chi-square value is 0.344, p> 0.05, Mauchlys test of sphericity proves that our assumption on sphericity is correct.
TABLE: 5.17
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Awareness Type III Sum Source Brand awareness Sphericity Assumed Greenhouse-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Error(Brand awareness) Sphericity Assumed Greenhouse-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound of Squares 66.829 66.829 66.829 66.829 50.671 50.671 50.671 50.671 df 2 1.982 2.000 1.000 78 77.304 78.000 39.000 Mean Square 33.415 33.715 33.415 66.829 .650 .655 .650 1.299 F 51.437 51.437 51.437 51.437 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 Partial Eta Squared .569 .569 .569 .569
INTERPRETATION Since our assumption on sphericity is correct, we interpret the values against sphericity assumed. The mean scores of brand awareness for FACT, MFL and KRIBHCO are statistically significantly different (F (2, 78) =51.437, p<0.001).
77
TABLE: 5.18
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Awareness Mean Difference (I(I) Brand awareness 1 (J) Brand awareness 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. J) 1.225* 1.788 -1.225
* * a
95% Confidence Interval for Difference Std. Error .189 .176 .189 .176 .176 .176 Sig. Lower Bound .753 1.347 -1.697 .123 -2.228 -1.002 Upper Bound 1.697 2.228 -.753 1.002 -1.347 -.123
.000 .000 .000 .008 .000 .008
.563* -1.788 -.563

* *
INTERPRETATION Looking at the above table we can know the significance level for differences between individual brands. We can see that there was a significant difference in the brand awareness of FACT and MFL (p<0.001), FACT and KRIBHCO (p<0.001), MFL and KRIBHCO (P<0.05)
78
FIGURE: 5.15
INTERPRETATION The table results can be easily understood with the help of the above plot.
79
REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA Comparison of Brand Association (2nd Dimension of Brand Equity) of FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO
TABLE: 5.19
Within-Subjects Factors Measure:MEASURE_1 Brand association 1 Dependent Variable Brand_Association_ FACT 2 Brand_Association_ MFL 3 Brand_Association_ Kribhco
INTERPRETATION Brand association of FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO are labeled numerical values 1, 2 &3
TABLE: 5.20
Descriptive Statistics Mean Brand_Association_FACT Brand_Association_MFL Brand_Association_Kribhco 4.4938 2.8500 2.7375 Std. Deviation .76269 .81610 .66735 N 40 40 40
INTERPRETATION The above table indicates the mean brand association of FACT (4.4938), MFL (2.8500) & KRIBHCO (2.7375)
80
TABLE: 5.21
Mauchly's Test of Sphericityb Measure:MEASURE_1 Epsilona Within Subjects Effect Brand association Mauchly's W .683 Approx. ChiSquare 14.494 df 2 Sig. .001 GreenhouseGeisser .759 HuynhFeldt .784 Lower-bound .500
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. b. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Brand association
INTERPRETATION Since the approx. chi-square value is 14.494, p> 0.05, Mauchlys test of sphericity proves that our assumption on sphericity is correct. TABLE: 5.22
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure:MEASURE_1 Type III Sum Source Brand association Sphericity Assumed Greenhouse-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Error(Brand association) Sphericity Assumed Greenhouse-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound of Squares 77.320 77.320 77.320 77.320 39.097 39.097 39.097 39.097 df 2 1.518 1.567 1.000 78 59.220 61.119 39.000 Mean Square 38.660 50.919 49.338 77.320 .501 .660 .640 1.002 F 77.128 77.128 77.128 77.128 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 Partial Eta Squared .664 .664 .664 .664
INTERPRETATION Since our assumption on sphericity is correct, we interpret the values against sphericity assumed. The mean scores of brand association for FACT, MFL and KRIBHCO are statistically significantly different (F (2, 78) =77.128, p<0.001).
81
TABLE: 5.23
Pairwise Comparisons Measure:MEASURE_1 Mean Difference (I(I) Brand association 1 (J) Brand association 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. J) 1.644* 1.756 -1.644
* * a
95% Confidence Interval for Difference Std. Error .187 .107 .187 .170 .107 .170 Sig. Lower Bound 1.176 1.489 -2.112 -.312 -2.024 -.537 Upper Bound 2.112 2.024 -1.176 .537 -1.489 .312
.000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 1.000
.113 -1.756
*
-.113
INTERPRETATION Looking at the above table we can know the significance level for differences between individual brands. We can see that there was a significant difference in the brand association of FACT and MFL (p<0.001), FACT and KRIBHCO (p<0.001), There is no significant difference between MFL and KRIBHCO (P<0.05)
82
FIGURE: 5.16
INTERRETATION The table results can be easily understood with the help of the above plot.
83
REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA Comparison of Brand Quality (3rd Dimension of Brand Equity) of FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO
TABLE: 5.24
Within-Subjects Factors Measure:MEASURE_1 Brand Quality 1 2 3 Dependent Variable Brand Quality_FACT Brand Quality_MFL Brand Quality_KRIBHCO
INTERPRETATION Brand Quality of FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO are labeled numerical values 1, 2 & 3
TABLE: 5.25
Descriptive Statistics Mean Quality_FACT Quality_MFL Quality_KRib 4.1000 2.9750 2.5500 Std. Deviation .84124 .97369 .84580 N 40 40 40
INTERPRETATION The above table indicates the mean brand quality of FACT (4.1000), MFL (2.9750) & KRIBHCO (2.5500)
84
TABLE: 5.26
Mauchly's Test of Sphericityb Measure:MEASURE_1 Epsilona Within Subjects Effect brand quality Mauchly's W .994 Approx. ChiSquare .212 df 2 Sig. .899 GreenhouseGeisser .994 HuynhFeldt 1.000 Lower-bound .500
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. b. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: brand quality
INTERPRETATION Since the approx. chi-square value is .212, p> 0.05, Mauchlys test of sphericity proves that our assumption on sphericity is correct. TABLE: 5.27
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure:MEASURE_1 Type III Sum Source brand quality Sphericity Assumed Greenhouse-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Error(brand quality) Sphericity Assumed Greenhouse-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound of Squares 51.317 51.317 51.317 51.317 49.350 49.350 49.350 49.350 df 2 1.989 2.000 1.000 78 77.568 78.000 39.000 Mean Square 25.658 25.801 25.658 51.317 .633 .636 .633 1.265 F 40.554 40.554 40.554 40.554 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 Partial Eta Squared .510 .510 .510 .510
INTERPRETATION Since our assumption on sphericity is correct, we interpret the values against sphericity assumed. The mean scores of brand quality for FACT, MFL and KRIBHCO are statistically significantly different (F (2, 78) =40.554, p<0.001).
85
TABLE: 5.28
Pairwise Comparisons Measure:MEASURE_1 95% Confidence Interval for Mean (I) brand quality 1 (J) brand quality 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Difference (I-J) 1.125* 1.550 -1.125
* *
Difference Std. Error .180 .182 .180 .171 .182 .171 Sig.
a
Lower Bound .675 1.094 -1.575 -.004 -2.006 -.854
Upper Bound 1.575 2.006 -.675 .854 -1.094 .004
.000 .000 .000 .053 .000 .053
.425 -1.550
*
-.425
INTERPRETATION Looking at the above table we can know the significance level for differences between individual brands. We can see that there was a significant difference in the brand quality of FACT and MFL (p<0.001), FACT and KRIBHCO (p<0.001), MFL and KRIBHCO (P>0.05)
86
FIGURE: 5.17
87
REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA Comparison of Brand Loyalty (4th Dimension of Brand Equity) of FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO
TABLE: 5.29
Within-Subjects Factors Measure:MEASURE_1 Brand loyalty 1 2 3 Dependent Variable Loyalty_FACT LOyalty_MFL Loyalty_KRIBHCO
INTERPRETATION Brand Loyalty of FACT, MFL & KRIBHCO are labeled numerical values 1, 2 & 3
TABLE: 5.30
Descriptive Statistics Mean Loyalty_FACT LOyalty_MFL Loyalty_Krib 4.1000 2.9750 2.1750 Std. Deviation .84124 .97369 .87376 N 40 40 40
INTERPRETATION The above table indicates the mean brand loyalty of FACT (4.1000), MFL (2.9750) & KRIBHCO (2.1750)
88
TABLE: 5.31
Mauchly's Test of Sphericityb Measure:MEASURE_1 Epsilona Within Subjects Effect brand loyalty Mauchly's W .995 Approx. ChiSquare .202 df 2 Sig. .904 GreenhouseGeisser .995 HuynhFeldt 1.000 Lower-bound .500
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. b. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: brand loyalty
INTERPRETATION Since the approx. chi-square value is .202, p> 0.05, Mauchlys test of sphericity proves that our assumption on sphericity is correct. TABLE: 5.32
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure:MEASURE_1 Type III Sum Source brand loyalty Sphericity Assumed Greenhouse-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Error(brand loyalty) Sphericity Assumed Greenhouse-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound of Squares 74.817 74.817 74.817 74.817 60.517 60.517 60.517 60.517 df 2 1.989 2.000 1.000 78 77.589 78.000 39.000 Mean Square 37.408 37.606 37.408 74.817 .776 .780 .776 1.552 F 48.216 48.216 48.216 48.216 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 Partial Eta Squared .553 .553 .553 .553
INTERPRETATION Since our assumption on sphericity is correct, we interpret the values against sphericity assumed. The mean scores of brand loyalty for FACT, MFL and KRIBHCO are statistically significantly different (F (2, 78) =48.216p<0.001).
89
TABLE: 5.33
Pairwise Comparisons Measure:MEASURE_1 95% Confidence Interval for Mean (I) brand loyalty 1 (J) brand loyalty 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Difference (I-J) 1.125* 1.925 -1.125
* *
Difference Std. Error .197 .191 .197 .203 .191 .203 Sig.
a
Lower Bound .633 1.448 -1.617 .292 -2.402 -1.308
Upper Bound 1.617 2.402 -.633 1.308 -1.448 -.292
.000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .001
.800* -1.925 -.800

* *
INTERPRETATION Looking at the above table we can know the significance level for differences between individual brands. We can see that there was a significant difference in the brand loyalty of FACT and MFL (p<0.001), FACT and KRIBHCO (p<0.001), MFL and KRIBHCO (P<0.05)
90
FIGURE: 5.18
91
FINDINGS
Most of the dealers prefer FACT(Mean Average =4.1) because the quality of the product is much high compared with MFL(Mean Average = 2.975) and KRIBHCO (Mean Average = 2.55) The Brand Awareness of the FACT is much high compared with other competitive companies (p<0.05). FACT (Mean Average =4.1) has a high loyalty in the minds of the dealers than MFL (Mean Average = 2.975) and KRIBHCO (Mean Average = 2.175) The Perceived Quality of FACT (p<0.001), products are much high compared to competitive companies. Regarding Brand Association FACT (p<0.001), has a high brand association than the other two companies. Regarding Sales promotion FACT (Mean Average = 2.075) is much low compared with MFL (Mean Average = 3.025) and KRIBHCO (Mean Average =4.075)
SUGGESTIONS
Company must give more focus on sales promotion of its products; it will give an added advantage to the company. By giving discounts, allowances, push money (cash or gifts to dealers) etc. to the dealers will increase their satisfaction level and increase the company reputation too.
92
CONCLUSION
It has been a great opportunity for me to conduct this study in THE FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE Ltd, a reputed public sector undertaking in South India. I understood the importance of FACT for the dealers, farmers and also for the economy. FACT is a traditional fertilizer industry in India. FACT established a name for itself by its extra ordinary performance during the previous year. But now it is in the midst of crisis as it is making huge losses. The main reason for this was due to the pricing control mechanism of the government for the fertilizers. Other reasons are the implementation of ammonium production plant in FACT, use of naphtha for production which is costlier as compared to LNG. This study Brand Equity of FACT Products among Dealers is to find out the brand value of FACT products. The study was conducted in Ernakulum district and the sample size was 40 dealers of the Ernakulam District. I expected that the outcome of the study will provide an overall idea and insight of whole Kerala dealers. From this study, I found that the FACT products have a certain brand name in the market rather than other companies. The quality of FACT products was good, but they have to try to retain the quality in coming years also. FACTOMFOS the FACT product has a high brand image among the farmers, dealers & competitors. I expect the study will benefit the company and throughout the study, i tried my level best to ensure that there is no personnel bias from my part and took all the steps to avoid others errors. All the findings & suggestions are based on realistic and practical considerations.
93
REFERENCES
Aaker D.A. and A. Biel eds. (1992) Building strong brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aaker, D. A. (1996) Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Rev. 38(Spring): 102-120. Aaker, D.A., R. Jacobson. (1994) Study shows brand-building pays off for stockholders. Advertising Age 65(30): 18. Aaker, D.A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press. AAKER, DAVID A. AND ERICH JOACHIMSTHALER (2000), Brand Leadership, London, Free Press. Acebron, L.B. and Dopico D.C.(2000) The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: an empirical application for beef. Food Quality and Preference 11(3): 229-38. Agarwal, M.K. and, V.R. Rao. (1996) An empirical comparison of consumerbased measures of brand equity. Marketing Letters 7(3): 237-47. Anselmsson, J., Johansson, U. and Persson N. (2007) Understanding price premium for grocery products: a conceptual model of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management 16(6): 401414. Barwise, P. (1993) Brand equity: Snark or Boojum? International Journal of Marketing Research 10 (March): 93-104. BALDAUF, ARTUR, KAREN S. CRAVENS, AND GUDRUN BINDER (2003), Performance Consequences of Brand Equity Management: Evidence from Organizations in the Value Chain, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12 (4), 220-236. Bendixen, M., Bukasa K.A. and Abratt R. (2004) Brand equity in the business-to-business market. Industrial marketing Management 33(5): 371380.
94
Bernues, A., Olaizola A. and Corcoran K. (2003) Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: an application for market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 14(4): 265- 76. Biel, A.L. (1992) How brand image drives brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, November/December: 9. Bilkey, W.J. and Nes E.(1982) Country of origin effects on product evaluation. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 89-99. 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. Boulding, W., Kalra A., Staelin R. and Zeithaml V. (1993) A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavior intentions, Journal of Marketing Research 30(February): 7-27. Brown, J.T. and Dacin P.A. (1997) The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(January): 68-84. Chaudhuri, A. (1995) Brand Equity or Double Jeopardy? Journal of Product & Brand Management 4(1): 26-32. 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. Chen A.C.H. (2001) Using free association to examine the relationship between the characteristics of brand associations and brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management 10 (7): 439 451 Chen, A.C-H. (1996) The measurement and building of customer-based brand equity, PhD dissertation, National Chengchi University in Taiwan. Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble C. A., & Donthu N. (1995) Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising 24: 25-40. De Chernatony, L. & McWilliam G. (1989) The varying nature of brands as asset. International Journal of Advertising 8: 339-49.
95
Dyson, Paul, Andy Farr, and Nigel S. Hollis (1996), Understanding, Measuring, and Using Brand Equity, Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (6), 9-21. Farquhar, P.H., Herr P.M. (1993) The dual structure of brand associations. In Aaker, D.A., Biel, A. Eds. Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertisings Role in Building Strong Brands, 263-77. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Farquhar, P.H., Han J.Y and Ijiri Y. (1991) Recognizing and Measuring Brand Assets. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA Farquhar, P. H. and Ijiri Y. (1993) A dialogue on momentum accounting for brand management. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10: 77-92. Farquhar, Peter H. (1989) Managing brand equity. Marketing Research 1(3):24-33. Feldwick, P. (1996) What is brand equity anyway and how do you measure it. Journal of the Marketing Research Society. 38: 85-104. Gordon, G. L., di Benedetto A. C., Calantone R. J. (1994) Brand equity as an evolutionary process. The Journal of Brand Management 2(1): pp. 47-56. Gremler, 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 Han C. M. and Terpstra V. (1988) Country of origin effects for uni-national and binational products. Journal of International Business Studies 19(summer): 235-255. Hankinson, G. and Cowking P. (1995) What do you really mean by the brand? The Journal of Brand Management 3(1): 43-50. Hoyer, W.D and Brown S.P. (1990) Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research. 17(September): 141-8. http://www.fact.co.in Johansson, J.K., Douglas S.P., and Nonaka I. (1985) Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a new methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing Research 5(3): 175-187.
96
Kamakura, A. W. and Russell G. J. (1993) Measuring brand value with scanner data. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10(March): 922. Kapferer J.N. (1992) Strategic Brand Management. New York and London: Kogan Page Kapferer, J.N. (1997) Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. 2nd edition. London: Kogan Page. Keller, K.L. (1992) Memory retrieval factors and advertising effectiveness. In Advertising Exposure, Memory and Choice. Mitchell A.A., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press. Keller KL. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(1): 1-22. Keller, K.L. (1998) Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall Keller, K.L. (2003) Strategic Brand Management. 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kim H-b.; Kim W.G.; An J.A. (2003) The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms' financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing 20(4): 335-351. Kotler, Philip and Keller Kevin L.(2006) Marketing Management.12th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Krishnan, H.S. (1996) Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer based brand equity perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 13: 389-405. Lassar, W., Mittal B. , and Sharma A. (1995) Measuring Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12(4): 11-19. Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C.S. and Harich, K.R. (1995) Brand equity: the halo effect measure. European Journal of Marketing 29(4): 57-66. Leuthesser, Lance. (1988) Defining, measuring and managing brand equity: A conference summary. Report #88-104, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
97
Mackay, Marisa M. (2001) Evaluation of brand equity measures: further empirical results. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 10(1): 3851. Martin, Greg S. and Brown Tom J.(1991) In Search of Brand Equity: The Conceptualization and Operationalization of the Brand Impression Construct. Winter Educator's Conference Proceedings, 1991, Terry L. Childers et al. eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association: 431-438. McAdam, Rodney and Leonard Denis. (2003) Corporate Social Responsibility in a Total Quality Management Context: Opportunities for Sustainable Growth. Corporate Governance, 3 (4): 36-45. Motameni, R., Shahrokhi M. (1998). Brand equity valuation: A global perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management 7(4): pp275-290. Na, W. B., Marshall Roger, Keller K.L. (1999). Measuring brand power: Validating a model for optimising brand equity. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 8(3): 170-184. Oliver R.L. (1997) Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective on consumer. McGraw Hill. Oliver, Richard L. (1999) Whence Consumer Loyalty. Journal of Marketing. 63(Special Issue): 33-44. 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. Ophuis, P.A.M.O. and Van Trijp H.C.M. (1995) Perceived quality: a market driven and consumer oriented approach. Food Quality and Preference 6(3): pp. 177-83. Ozsomer, A. and Cavusgil, S.T (1991) Country of origin effects on product evaluations : a sequel to Bilkey and Nes review. in Gillyet al .Eds. AMA Educators Proceedings, Vol 2, Chicago, 269-277. Park, C.W., Jaworski B.J., MacInnes, D. (1986) Strategic brand concept image management. Journal of Marketing 50(OCT): 135-45.
98
Rao, A. R. and Ruekert R.W. (1994) Brand alliances as signals of product quality. Sloan Management Review: pp. 87-97 Rao,A. R., Qu, L., & Ruekert R.W. (1999) Signaling unobservable product quality through a brand ally. Journal of Marketing Research 36: 258-268. Richardson, P.S., Dick A.S. and Jain A.K. (1994) Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing 58(4): 2837. Ries, Al and Trout, Jack. (1985) Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. McGraw-Hill Companies. Shocker, A.D., Srivastave R.K. and Reukert R.W. (1994) Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: An introduction to special issue. Journal of Marketing Research 31: 149-158. Simon, C. J., & Sullivan M.W. (1990) The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Working Paper. Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago. Srivastava, Rajendra K. and Shocker Allan D. (1991) Brand Equity: A Perspective on its Meaning and Measurement. Cambridge Mass: Marketing Science Institute. Steenkamp, J-B.E. (1997) Dynamics in consumer behaviour with respect to agricultural and food products. In Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behaviour in a Changing World. Wierenga, B., van Tilburg, A., Grunert, K., Steenkamp, J.B. and Wedel, M. Eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Swait, J., Erdem T., Louviere J. & Dubelaar C. (1993) The equalization price: A measure of consumer-perceived brand equity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10: 23-45. Thakor, M.V. and Lavack, A.M. (2003) Effect of perceived brand origin associations on consumer perceptions of quality. Journal of Product & Brand Management 12(6): 394-407 Thakor, Mrugank V. and Kohli Chiranjeev S. (1996) Brand Origin: Conceptualization and Review, Journal of Consumer Marketing 13 (3): 2742.
99
Thorelli Hans B., Lim Jeen-Su, Ye Jongsuk. (1989) Relative Importance of Country of Origin, Warranty, and Retail Store Image on Product Evaluations. International Marketing Review 6(1). Van Osselaer, S., & Alba J.W. (2000) Consumer learning and brand equity. Journal of Consumer Research 27: 1-16. Vzquez R., Ro A.B., Iglesias V. (2002) Consumer-based Brand Equity: Development and Validation of a Measurement Instrument. Journal of Marketing Management 18(1-2): 27-48. Washburn, J.H. and Plank R.E. (2002). Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 10(1): 46-62. Winters, L.C. (1991) Brand Equity Measures: Some Recent Advances. Marketing Research 3: 70-73. Yoo, B. and Donthu N.( 2001) Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52(1): 1-14. Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52(3): 222.
100
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
A study on brand equity among the dealers of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd (FACT), Cochin
I am Smijin .P.S, studying fourth semester MBA in Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science currently doing my project work in The Fertilizers And Chemicals Travancore Limited, Eloor, Udyogamandal. The following
questionnaire is administered by me as part of my study requirements and I assure you that the information provided by you will be kept confidential. Kindly co-operate with me.
Name of Dealer :
1. ANNUAL APPROXIMATE TURN OVER INCLUSIVE OF ALL

PRODUCTS? a) LESS THAN 10 LAKHS c) 1-5 CRS b) 10 LAKHS-1 CRS d) MORE THAN 5 CRS
2. DOES YOUR SALES LINE INCLUDE PRODUCTS OTHER THAN

FERTILIZERS? a) YES b) NO
101
3. SPECIFY PRODUCTS OTHER THAN FERTILIZERS INCLUDED IN

THE SALES LINE
a) CEMENT c) AGRICULTURE MACHINARIES b) STEEL d) SAFTEY EQUIPMENTS
4. ANNUAL SALES TURNOVER OF FERTILIZERS

a) c) LESS THAN 500 MT 2000-5000 MT b) 500-2000 MT d) MORE THAN 5000 MT
5. APPROXIMATE SHARE OF THE FOLLOWING FERTILIZERS IN THE

ANNUAL SALES OF DEALERS a) STRAIGHT FERTILIZERS ( %) %) ( %)
b) N.P COMPLEX FERTILIZERS ( c) MIXTURES BRAND AWARENESS
6. RATE THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES ACCORDING TO FARMERS

PREFERENCE FOR STRAIGHT AND N.P COMPLEX FERTILIZERS (a) STRAIGHT FERTILIZERS Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5
102
(b) N.P COMPLEX FERTILIZERS Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5
7. RATE THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES ACCORDING TO DEALERS

PREFERENCE FOR STRAIGHT AND N.P COMPLEX FERTILIZERS (a) STRAIGHT FERTILIZERS Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5
(b) N.P COMPLEX FERTILIZERS Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5
103
BRAND ASSOCIATION
8. RATE THE FOLLOWING BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON

YOUR PERCEPTION OF THEIR VALUE
Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO

YOUR TRUST UP ON THEM. Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5

YOUR DISTINCTIVENES Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5
104
11.RATE THE FOLLOWING BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON

THEIR SALES PROMOTION Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5
12.RATE THE FOLLOWING BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON THE

MARGIN Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5
PERCIVED QUALITY
13.RATE THE FOLLOWING BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON THE

QUALITY OFFERED Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5
105
BRAND LOYALITY

YOUR REPEATED PATRONAGE Companies FACT MFL KRIBHCO 1 2 3 4 5
DATE: PLACE: DEALER SIGNATURE
106

MBA Project (Smijin .P.S)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

MBA Project (Smijin .P.S)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

A STUDY ON BRAND EQUITY AMONG THE DEALERS OF THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE Ltd (FACT), COCHIN

A PROECT REPORT Submitted By

Under the guidance of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In

HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLGY & SCIENCE CHENNAI 603 103 APRIL-2012

Prof. Gopichander Head of the Department School of Management

Mr G. Prithiviraj Teaching Research Associate, Project Guide School of Management

PLACE: CHENNAI DATE:

INDUSTRY AND COMPANY PROFILES 2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE 6-9

2.2 COMPANY PROFILE REVIEW OF LITERATURE

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS

SHARE OF THE FOLLOWING FERTILIZERS

BRAND AWARENESS OF FACT, MFL AND KRIBHCO

BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON PERCEPTION

BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON THE LOYALTY

5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25

PAIRWISE COMPARISON (BRAND AWARENESS)

WITHIN-SUBJECTS FACTOR (BRAND ASSOCIATION)

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (BRAND ASSOCIATION)

MAUCHLYS TEST SPHERICITY (BRAND ASSOCIATION)

TESTS OF WITHIN-SUBJECTS EFFECTS (BRAND ASSOCIATION) PAIRWISE COMPARISONS (BRAND ASSOCIATION)

WITHIN-SUBJECTS FACTORS (BRAND QUALITY)

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (BRAND QUALITY)

MAUCHLYS TEST OF SPHERICTY (BRAND QUALITY)

TESTS OF WITHIN SUBJECTS EFFECTS (BRAND QUALITY)

WITHIN-SUBJECTS FACTORS (BRAND LOYALTY)

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (BRAND LOYALTY) MAUCHLS TEST OF SHERICITY (BRAND LOYALTY)

TESTS OF WITHIN-SUBJECTS EFFECTS (BRAND LOYALTY)

PAIRWISE COMPARISONS (BRAND LOYALTY)

BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASSED ON PERCIVED QUALITY

BRAND OF FERTILIZERS BASED ON LOYALTY

ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS OF AWARENESS

ESTIMATED MARGINA MEANS OF ASSOCIATION

ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEAN OF QUALITY

ESTIMATED MARGINAL MEANS OF LOYALTY

CHAPTER 2 INDUSTRY AND COMPANY PROFILES

CHAPTER 3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS

1.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND BRAND EQUITY

p. 24). Apart from Farquhars first

1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

1.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium.

2.1.1 GROWTH OF FERTILIZER INDUSTRY

2.1.2 TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS

2.1.3 FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (FAI):

2.1.4 OBJECTIVES OF FAI:

2.2 COMPANY PROFILE

Table no: 2.1 BRIEF PICTURE OF FACT:

Table no: 2.2 MILESTONES OF FACT

Fig. 2.1 COMPANY LOGO

2.2.7 PRODUCTS a) Finished products

3.1 A Framework for Measuring Customer & Dealer-Based Brand Equity

3.2 Four Dimensions of Brand Equity

4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN:

4.2 SAMPLING POPULATION

4.2.1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

4.2.2 SAMPLE SIZE

4.3 DATA COLLECTION

4.3.1 PRIMARY DATA