ABSTRACT

CUSTOMERS SATISFACTION AND OPINION TOWARDS KS CATTLE FEED

The Aim of the study is to understand the customers’ satisfaction and purchase pattern
for the KS Cattle Feed. In this research a group of people is surveyed through questionnaire.
They have been asked to fill the formatted list of questions and by asking questions the
researcher fills the questionnaire. The Collected data’s are analyse through SPSS and Microsoft
Excel Software.

Objectives

 To find the perception about KS Cattle Feed and other brands dealt by the customers.
 To know the customers satisfaction level and influencing factors to deal with KS Cattle
Feed.
 To know the purchase pattern of KS Cattle Feed by the customers.

Research methodology
The Research study is descriptive in nature.
Primary Data is collected from the customers who are purchasing and dealing with KS
Cattle Feed products.
Secondary Data for this research is collected from the Internet, Companies Websites,
and Proquest.
Sampling method used here is convenience sampling method.
The Statistical tools used for measuring and analyzing the data obtained from the survey
are Weighted Average, Frequency Analysis, Bar Diagrams & Pie Charts
Findings
Many Customers were loyal to KS Cattle feed and not ready to deal with other brands.

Majority of the customers felt to reduce the price and increase the availability of
product.

Supreme pellet is the most dealt product by the customers. Cattle owners were unaware
about other brands.
Need for the study

The Need for the study is to understand the level of satisfaction, opinion and purchasing
pattern of the distributors as well as the cattle owners who are buying KS cattle feed product
in the Dindigul district.

Objectives of the study

 To find the perception about KS Cattle Feed and other brands dealt by the customers.
 To know the customers satisfaction level and influencing factors to deal with KS Cattle
Feed.
 To know the purchase pattern of KS Cattle Feed by the customers.

Research Methodology
Research Design
The Research study is of descriptive in nature.
Nature of data
The Data used in this study is Primary data and Secondary data.
Sources of data
Primary Data
Primary Data is collected from the customers i.e., Distributors and Cattle Owners who
are buying and dealing with KS Cattle Feed products.
Secondary data
Secondary Data for this research is collected from the Internet, Companies Websites,
and Proquest.
Method of Data Collection
Primary Data
Primary Data is collected using survey method and the instrument used here is
questionnaire.
Here the researcher collected the data by face to face interaction between the customers.
Secondary Data
Secondary Data is collected by recording the files and records from the organization.
Sampling design
Population
The Size of the population for the Distributors and Cattle Owners is unknown.
 Sampling Size Description
Sampling size was planned to collect in the ratio of 200(Distributors):300(Cattle
Owners) in the Dindigul district.

1 Area = 20 Distributors

9 Areas = 180 Distributors

Here the distributors are Dealers, Sub dealers, Retailers, Milk Vendors, Individual Milk
Vendors.

Samples of Cattle Owners were collected at the Milk centres in rural areas of Dindigul District.

Sample size is 441.(176 distributors and 265 Cattle owners).

Sampling Method

Sampling method used here is convenience sampling method.

Tools used for analysis

The Statistical tools used for measuring and analysing the data obtained from the survey are

 Weighted Average.
 Frequency Analysis.
 Bar Diagrams &
 Pie Charts.
 CHAPTER II
CUSTOMERS SATISFACTION AND OPINION TOWARDS KS CATTLE FEED
Classification of Customers who are dealing with KS Cattle Feed

Type of Customers
Number of Customers

265

131

38
7

Dealers Sub Dealers others cattle owners

Type of Customers

From the above Fig represents that retailers who are dealing with KS Cattle feed
product as well as other brands of cattle feed were comes under the others category they may
be an Retailer, Milk vendors whereas dealing only with KS cattle feed products are considered
to be Sub Dealers. There were 7 Dealers, 131 Sub Dealers, 265 Cattle owners and 38 other
distributors.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE DISTRIBUTORS

In this chapter bar diagrams and pie diagrams represents the classification of customers
like Type of Business, Location, Stock Yard for cattle feed, Year of Experience and Experience
in KS Cattle Feed.
Business Type
Number of Distributors

87

38
23 20
1 1 1 1 4

Type of Business
 Location Cattle Feed Stock Yard

150
Number of Distributors

17%

13%

70%

22
4

Separate Stock yard

Urban Semi Urban Rural No Separate Stock yard
No Response
Location

Inference

In Fig represents that milk vendors are the major customers are milk vendors which is
about 87 and 38 Grocery shops 23 agro traders which means they deal with the products related
to agriculture and then followed by the Individual milk vendors and minor customers are doing
their business like Rice Mill,oil shop,automobile shop, electrical shop and garments

In Fig represents that major distributors are from the rural areas and only 4 distributors
are in the urban ares and the remaaining were localised in semi urban areas.

In Fig represents that 13% of the distributors didn’t have separate place and 70% of the
distributors have separate palce i.e., separate stock yard for placing the KS Cattle feed and
other brands of cattle feed.
 Year of Experience

Number of Distributors
134

28
9
4 1

<1 1-30years 31-60years above 61 No Response

years
Number of Years

Inference

In Fig represents that most of the distributors are very musch experienced in their field
and the comes under the category of 1-30 years of experience and only 4 distributors were less
than 1 year of experience and very few distributors were comes under the category of 60 years
and above experience in their business.

Experience in KS Cattle Feed

143
Number of Distributors

6 15 11
1

<1 1-15years 16-45years 46-60years No Response

Number of Years

Inference

In Fig represents that 143 distributors have 1-15 years of experience in dealing with the
KS Cattle Feed.Almost 16 customers are expereinced more than 16 years in this field this
shows their loyalty and belief about ks cattle feed and very few were expereinced less than 1
year.
PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT CATTLE OWNERS

AGE GENDER

110
Number of Cattle Owners

Number of Cattle Owners

77
215

45
50
16 16
1
Male Female
15-30 31-45 46-60 61-75 76 above No
response Gender
Number of Years

Inference

In Fig represents that major cattle owners who are buying KS Cattle Feed are at the age
of 31-45 years of age and second major customers are between the age of 46-60 age and then
less than 30 age of customers followed by one cattle owner whose age is more than 75. This
Figure clearly shows the level of development and reachable by the KS Cattle Feed among the
cattle owners.

In Fig represents that majority of the Cattle Owners are male whichis about 215 and
remaining were females.This clearly shows that males are the major decision maker in buying
the cattle feed for their cattles.

Location Type of Business

3%
263
Number of Cattle Owners

0 2

97%
Urban Semi Urban Rural
Location Agriculture Daily Wages
 Qualification Type of Cattle Owners

1st- 5th 6th-9th 10th-12th

Diploma Illiterate 1%
0%
162 <5(Small)
Number of Cattle Owners

13%
5-
10(Medium)
32 44
>10(Large)
24
3
No Response
86%
Qualification

Inference

In Fig represents that majority of the cattle owners are presented in rural areas and very
few were in the semi urban area and no cattle owners in the urban area.

In Fig represents that 97% of the cattle owners were involved in agriculture and 3% of
the customers comes under the category of buying daily wages of salary and handling their
cattles.

In Fig represents that among 265 cattle owners 162 were uneducated and and major
cattle owners were falls under the category of 6th to 9th standard. This figure shows the level of
education among the cattle owners are very less.

Experience in KS Cattle Feed

Number of Cattle Owners

122 35 99
5
4

Less than 1-10year 11-20year 21-30year No Response

1year
Number of Years
Inference

In Fig represents that among 265 cattle owners more than 120 cattle owners were
experiencing KS Cattle Feed product for their cattles for more than 6 years, 35 customers
experiencing 11 to 20 years and 5 customers at 30 years and few customers were at the initial
stage of buying the KS Cttle Feed which is for a few months.

General opinion about KS Cattle feed product by the Customers

Recommendation of KS catttle feed to others by distributors and cattle owners

For Distributors For Cattle Owners

yes no no response yes no no response

0% 6%
23%

1%
94%
76%

Inference

From the Fig represents that 76% of the distributors will recommend the KS cattle
product to the customers, this indirectly represents the high satisfaction towards the product
and only 1% will not recommend the product to others.

From the Fig represents that 94% of the cattle owners will recommend the cattle feed
product to others.
Product Variety Ranked by the Customers

S.No Product variety Weightage and S.No Product variety Weightage

Rank and Rank
1 Supreme pellet 1.00 1 Supreme pellet 1.00
2 Delux pellet 2.00 2 Delux pellet 2.00
3 Mash 3.00 3 Mash 3.00
For Distributors For Cattle Owners

Inference

From the above table represents that Supreme pellet is the fast moving variety of KS
cattle feed which is followed Delux Pellet and slow moving product is Mash.

From the above mentioned (Fig) product varieties most preferred pellet dealt by the
Cattle Owners are Supreme pellet which is followed by the Delux pellet and then Mash. Many
cattle Owners were unaware about the mash and very few by Delux pellet.

Factors to be Improved in KS Cattle Feed

Distributors Cattle Owners

S.No. Factors
Count Percentage (%) Count Percentage (%)
1 Price 91 51.70 142 53.58
2 Product Quality 11 06.25 18 6.79
3 Availability 22 12.50 49 18.49
4 Delivery 17 09.66 11 4.15
5 Credit Period 5 02.84 00 0.00
6 Others 11 06.25 3 1.13
7 No Need 66 37.50 103 38.87

Inference

The Table represents that almost 50% of the distributors are requested to reduce the
price of the product even if the milk rate and corn rate get reduced. 6.25% said to increase the
quality of the product by providing more protiens. 12.5% and 9.66% says that they can make
more availabiltyof product and can delivery the product at prompt time period during summer
seasons.
 The above table represents that 53.58% of the cattel owners were need some changes
in KS Cattle feed product by reducing the price, 18% of them suggested to improve the
availability of product. 4% and 6.79% of the cattle owners were suggested to improve the
quality of product and delivery at the prompt manner for the required time. 38.87% of the
customers didn’t need any change in the KS Cattle feed.

General factors for Distributors to deal with various brands of Cattle Feed

S.No Factors Count Percentage (%)

1 Price 8 4.55
2 Product Quality 167 94.89
3 Profit Margin 1 0.57
4 Others 0 0.00
5 No Response 8 4.55
Factors for Distributors to deal with various Cattle Feed Brands

Inference

From the above mentioned table 94.89% of the distirbutors ranked first for the KS
Cattle feed product for its quality, and 4.55% and 0.5 % of the customers ranked first for the
SKM product for its price and profit margin.

Cattle Feed brands dealt by the Customers

S.No Cattle Feed Brands Count Percentage (%)

1 KSE 176 100
2 SKM 026 14.77
3 Krishi 008 4.54
4 Godrej 005 2.84
5 Shanthi 004 2.27
6 Kamadenu 003 1.70
7 Vijaya 002 1.13
8 Annai 001 0.56
9 Deepam 001 0.56
10 Amarajothy 001 0.56
Brands dealt by the Distributors
Inference

From the above table it is to be understood that not all the distributors have dealt with
the other brands of cattle feed. After the KS 14.77% of the customers have dealt with SKM and
only few percentage of retailers were dealt other brands like Kamadenu, Vijaya, Annai,
Deepam, Amarajothy.

S.No Cattle feed Brands Count

1 KSE 265
2 Other brands 000
Brands dealt by the Cattle Owners

Inference

From the above table it clearly shows that all the cattle owners were dealing only with
KS Cattle feed. They did not dealt with other brands of cattle feed. Because of the quality of
the product and more productivity of milk yield by the cattles which feeding KS Cattle feed.

Expectation about KS Cattle feed by the Customers

Distributors Expectation about KS Cattle Owners Expectation about KS

5%
1%

39%

34%
60%

61%

yes no no response yes no no response

Inference

From the above Fig 60% provide suggestion to KS cattle feed and 39% of the
distributors are satisfied with the present stage of the product, hence they didn’t give any
suggestion to the KS cattle feed for the product improvement

From the above Fig 61% of the cattle owners suggested to develope the product 34%
were suggested not to make any changes in the KS Cattle feed.

Customers Perception about KS Cattle Feed and Other Brands.

KS SKM Other brands

S.No Factors
Weightage Rank Weightage Rank Weightage Rank
1 Price 4.08 2 4.31 1 4.04 1
2 Discount 2.01 7 3.52 7 3.1 7
3 Door Delivery 4.16 4 3.92 5 3.8 4
4 Credit facility 2.74 6 3.85 6 3.6 6
5 Product variety 4.15 5 4.1 3 3.96 2
Information
6 4.4 3 4.25 2 3.94 3
offered
Productivity of
7 4.69 1 3.9 4 3.76 5
milk
Overall 3.81 3.97 3.74
Rank 2 1 3
Distributors Perception about various Brands

Inference

From the above table it is to be understood that

 KS Cattle feed brand have more weightage to productivity of milk and price of the
cattle feed giving least weightage to credit facility and discounts which is not provided
by the company.
 For the SKM brand price is prefered to be the more weightage given by the distributors
it indirectly represents that the price of the SKM brand cattle feed is very much less
compared to other brands in the market,which is followed by the information offered
and product.
  For the other brands of cattle feed like Krishi, Godrej, Annai and Kamadenu and so on
are provided more weightage to price and product variety which is followed by the
information offered by the company to the distributors
 In all the brands credit facility and discounts were provided least weightage.
 While comparing all the brands, for price SKM, for door delivery, for prodcut variety
and information offered and productivity KS cattle feed is provided more weightage.
 Overall opinion among the brands are 3.81 for KS cattle feed and 3.97 for SKM.

S.no Factors Weightage Rank

1 Milk Productivity 4.658 1
2 Milk Quality 4.593 2
3 Product Variety 4.132 3
4 Credit Facility 3.922 4
5 Price 3.564 5
6 Discount 2.211 6
7 Door Delivery 2.111 7
Cattle Owners Perception about KS Cattle Feed
Inference

From the above table it is to be understood, majority of the cattle owners were saying
that, by feeding KS Cattle Feed product to the cattes productivity of milk and Quality of milk
yield by the cattle is very much high. KS Cattle feed can also reduce the price for the product,
can increase the door delivery and provide some discounts for the cattle owners.

Influencing factors for the Customers to deal with KS Cattle Feed

Distributors Cattle Owners

S.no Product Factors
Weightage Rank Weightage Rank
1 Package size 4.943 1 4.679 2
2 Product range 4.751 2 4.701 1
3 Package quality 4.724 3 4.634 4
4 Product texture 4.665 4 4.498 7
5 Product variety 4.640 5 4.604 5
 6 Brand image 4.632 6 4.596 6
7 Attractive package 4.607 7 4.648 3
8 Product smell 4.500 8 4.166 8
Product related factors for both the Distributors and Cattle Owners
to deal with KS
Inference
The above table represents that both the distributors and the cattle owners provide same
rank for the product variety, brand image and product smell. Distributors were very much
convenient with the product size, package quality and range of the product but they are
inconvenient with the product smell, whereas the cattle owners are satisfied with package size,
package attraction and quality but very much dissatisfied with smell of the product, because
smell becoming less for the last few years.
Influencing factors for Distributors to deal with KS

S.no Price factors Weightage Rank

1 Payment process 3.548 1
2 Profit margin 3.377 2
3 Product price 3.205 3
4 Credit period 2.957 4
Price related aspects to deal with KS
Inference
From the above table it is to be understood that Distributors i.e., Dealers, Sub-dealers
and Retailers were moderately satisfied by the price of the product, profit margin provided by
the company, and need some credit period to move on the KS Cattle Feed.

S.no Promotion factors Weightage Rank

1 Advertisement 2.708 1
2 Sales promotion 2.588 2
3 Customers meetings 1.971 3
Promotional aspects for dealing with KS
Inference
From the above table it is to be understood that the distributors were not very much
satisfied by the sales promotion, advertisement and meetings conducted by the company to the
customers.

S.no Distribution factors Weightage Rank

1 Logistic service 3.746 1
2 Product supply 3.741 2
3 On time delivery 3.707 3

Distribution aspects for dealing with KS

Inference

The above table represents that for the distribution factors the weightage provided by
the customers i.e., distributors were 3.7. It clearly shows that logistic service is satisfied by the
distributors than the prompt delivery and product supply, because supply of product is not
consistent at prompt time for delivery of cattle feed.

S.no Other factors Weightage Rank

1 Order flexibility 4.524 1
2 After sales support 4.518 2
3 Order processing 4.319 3
4 Loyal customers 4.097 4
5 Sales person visit 3.993 5
6 Customer need 3.563 6
Other aspects to deal with KS
Inference
From the above table it is to be understood that the distributors are highly satisfied by
order flexibility, after sales support, and order processing and the customer needs are not very
much satisfied by the company.
Influencing factors for Cattle Owners to deal with KS Cattle Feed

S.no Price factors Weightage Rank

1 Payment Process 3.840 1
2 Credit Period 3.817 2
3 Product price 3.637 3
Price related factors to deal with KS
Inference

This table represents that cattle owners are almost satisfied with process of payment,
credit period due to a period of maximum one month and slightly dissatisfied with price of the
product for the cattle feed.

S.no Promotion factors Weightage Rank

1 Advertisement 2.556 1
2 Sales Promotion 2.300 2
3 Customer welfare promotion 1.819 3
4 Customers meeting 1.765 4
Promotional aspects for dealing with KS
Inference
From the above table it is to be understood that the customers were highly dissatisfied
with the promotions done by the company to the product. The factors like, meetings for the
customers, customer welfare promotions, sales promotion and advertisement in order to reduce
the expenses.

S.no Distribution factors Weightage Rank

1 On time delivery 3.615 1
2 Product supply 3.489 2
Distribution aspects to deal with KS
Inference
The above table represents that the cattle owners are satisfied with delivery and supply
of the product by the dealers.
 S.no Other factors Weightage Rank
1 Yield of milk 4.728 1
2 Protein to cattle 4.693 2
3 Order Processing 4.632 3
4 Defect Replacement 4.473 4
5 Order Flexibility 4.415 5
6 After Sales Support 4.396 6
Other aspects for dealing with KS

Inference

From the above table it is to be understood that the customers are highly satisfied with
yield of milk by the cattles because of the cattle feed and it is believed that cattle feed provides
more protien to the cattles which is followed by the order processing, defect replacement, order
flexibility and after sales support.

S.No Number of Cattles Count Percentage (%)

1 <5 Cattles 82 46.59
2 5-10 Cattles 70 39.77
3 >10 Cattles 16 09.09
4 No Response 12 06.82
Type of Cattle Owners

Inference

In the above table 46.59% of the cattle owners have <5 cattles(Small) and 39.77% of
the cattles owners have at the maximum of 10 cattles(Medium), 9.09% have greater than 10
cattles (Large)includes with the maximum of 12-13 cattles.
Customers Purchasing Pattern of KS Cattle Feed

Types of Package and Quantity prefered by the Customers

Distributors prefered Package Quantity Distributors prefered Package Type

173 169

Number of Distributors
Number of Distributors

6 5
0 20

hdpe jute no
50 60 70 response
Package Quantity(in kgs) Type of Package

Cattle Owners prefered Package Type Cattle Owners prefered Package Quantity

248

247

17
18 0 3
1
50 60 70 no
hdpe jute no reponse response

Inference

From the above Fig represents that 173 distributors were dealing with the 50kg package
quantity because it covers less space in the shop and can carry more pakages easily and 3
distributors also dealing with 70 kg package.
 From the above Fig represents that 169 customers were prefering high density
polyethylene pack and 6 members also prefering jute bag for the cattle feed, it mainly depends
on the quantity of package prefered by the cattle owners.

In Fig represents that 248 cattle owners prefering 50kg of pack because it will be easy
to carry and can calculate easily for feeding the cattles daily. But 70 kg bag prefered by very
few cattle owners because it cannot be easiy carry outfor transportation.

In Fig represents that 247 cattle owners were prefering HDPE bag because it will not
permiable to water and looks more attractive than the jute which is prefered by only one catte
owners.

Variety of Product dealt by the Customers

S.No Product Variety Count S.No. Product variety Count

1 Supreme Pellet 176 1 Supreme Pellet 265
2 Delux pellet 7 2 Delux Pellet 0
3 Mash 1 3 Mash 0
For Distributors For Cattle Owners

Inference

In this table 176 distributors were dealing with the variety of Supreme pellet and dealt
Delux pellet by 7 distributors.

In this table all the cattle owners were dealing with Supreme pellet only, because dealer
has the buying and distributing power in the particular area for the company. Hence it clearly
shows that they are not dealing with delux pellet and mash. One important aspect is that many
of the cattle owners were not aware about the various varieties of cattle feed.

Distributors Purchasing Pattern of KS Cattle Feed

Prefered Type of Order Placing

S.No Order Placing Type Count Percentage (%)

1 Direct Visit 43 24.43
2 Tele calling 88 50.00
3 Door Delivery 143 81.25
4 Others 01 00.57
Inference

From the above table it is to understood that majority of the distributors preferring door
delivery , and then telecalling followed by direct visit to place the order for KS Cattle feed.

S.No Product Delivery time Count Percentage (%)

1 1-5hrs 5 02.84
2 5-10hrs 15 08.52
3 24hrs 45 25.57
4 48hrs 92 52.27
5 1 Week 3 01.70
6 No Response 32 18.18
Time taken to Deliver the Ordered Prodcuts

Inference

From the above table it is to be understood 52.27% of the distributors said that
maximum time to deliver the ordered product is 48hours and 1.70% of the distributors said that
it may take 1 week to deliver tha product at a rare situation. At the minimum of 1-5 hours to
deliver the cattle feed by the company which depends upon the availabilty of the product.

Frequent Order Placing Pattern

S.No Order Placing Count Percentage (%)

1 Daily 05 02.84
2 Alternative Days 05 02.84
3 1-2 Times a Week 33 18.75
4 Fortnight 97 55.11
5 Monthly Once 45 25.57
6 Others 04 02.27
Inference

From the above table 55.11% of the distributors prefers fortnight and 25.57% of the
customers place their order once in 30 days. Only 2.84 % of the distributors placing the order
daily and in the alternative days which is mainly done by the dealers and bulk customers who
preferring more bags of cattle feed.
 Prefered Payment Mode

S.No. Payment mode Count Percentage (%)

1 Net Banking 007 03.98

2 Cash 160 90.91

3 DD 000 00.00
4 Cheque 001 00.57
5 No Response 008 04.55
Inference

In the above table maximum mode of payment prefered by the distributors are cash
payment which is 90.91% , and only dealers are prefering Net Banking mode of payment for
ordering and buying the KS Cattle feed. It clearly shows that no one is ready to prefer demand
draft and 0.57% like to prefer cheque for payment.

Credit Period Duration

S.No. Credit Period Count Percentage (%)

1 <5 8 4.55
2 5-10 Days 24 13.64
3 Fortnight 8 4.55
4 30 Days 10 5.68
5 Need 15 8.52
6 Not Needed 98 55.68
Inference

In the above table maximum credit period given to the distributors are 30 days which
is very rare for the distributors like retailers. 8.52 % distributors were in need of credit period
but dealers and company of certain area are not raedy to provide them.Many of the retailers
and subdealers are able to do ready cash for the dealers so they did not need credit period who
is at 55.68%.
Cattle Owners Purchasing Pattern of KS Cattle Feed

Prefered Type of Order Placing

S.No. Order Placing Type Count Percentage (%)

1 Direct Visit 258 97.36
2 Tele Calling 035 13.21
3 Door Delivery 004 01.51
4 No Response 006 02.26
Inference

From the above table it is to understood that many of the cattle owners i.e., 97.36%
were place their order by direct visit to the shop ,which most probably preferd by the telecalling
to the distributors.

S.No. Product Delivery Time Count Percentage (%)

1 1-5 hrs 01 00.38
2 6- 10 hrs 02 00.75
3 24 hrs 60 22.64
4 48 hrs 209 78.87
5 No Response 31 11.70
Time taken to Deliver the Ordered Prodcuts

Inference

The above table represents that maximum time taken to deliver the product by the
distributors were almost 2 days after placing the order, which is followed by one day for
delivering the ordered product.

Frequent Order Placing Pattern

S.No. Order Placing Count Percentage (%)

1 Less than 10 Days 32 12.08
2 Fortnight 98 36.98
3 Monthly Once 138 52.08
 4 No Response 12 04.53
Inference

In table represents that maximuum(52.08%)frequency of placing the order by the cattle

owners were once in 30 days and then 36.98% for once in 15 days which is followed by 12.08%
were place their product less than 10 days which depends upon the no of cattles for the
particular customers and productivity of mik by the cattles.

Quality Factors to Prefer KS Cattle Feed for Cattles

S.No. Factors Count Percentage (%)

1 Milk Yield 143 53.96
2 Cattle Health 211 79.62
3 Taste 072 27.17
4 Milk Quality 174 65.66
Inference

From the above table it is to be understood that 79.62% of the cattle owners were
prefering for cattle health and 65.66% for quality of milk, 53.96% for high yield of milk by the
cattle by feeding KS Cattle feed. Only 27.17% of the cattle owners were prefering for the taste
liked by the cattles for feed.

Prefered Payment Mode

S.No. Payment Mode Count Percentage (%)

1 Cash on Delivery 028 10.56
2 Credit Instalment 228 86.03
3 No Response 009 03.39
Inference

The above table represents that 86.03% of the cattle owners were convenient with
credit instalments and prefering the most. Very few customers prefering cash on delivery which
depends on the number of feed bags ordered by the cattle owners.
 Credit Period Duration

S.No. Credit Period Count Percentage (%)

1 <8days 00 00.00
2 8-15 Days 32 12.08
3 30 Days 170 64.15
4 No Response 67 25.28
Inference

The above table represents that maximum credit provided to catte owners for 30 days
and 12.08% for 8-15 days, none of the cattle owners were ready to accept the credit period for
less than 8 days.

Promotional Factors Expected by the Distributors from KSE

Promotions Expected by the Distributors from KSE

S.No. Promotional Factors Count Percentage (%)

1 Advertisement 11 06.25
2 Farmers Meetings 00 00.00
3 Cattle Welfare 10 05.68
4 Others 12 06.82
5 Not Needed 144 81.82
Inference

In the above table represents that maximum promotion need by the distributors are
boardings, wall paintings, dealer meetings, schemes like 500 bags one garde points for the
cutomers,and then word of mouth. As it is the long range product 81.82% of the customers
didn’t need any promotions for the KS Cattle feed. 5.68% of the distributors expecting cattle
welfare to promote their product than the farmers meeting.
 Customers Future Willingness Level to buy KS Cattle Feed.

Future Willingness Level to Purchase KS Cattle Feed product by the Customers

Distributors Cattle Owners

S.No. Willingness Level
Count Percentage (%) Count Percentage (%)
1 Definitely Would Buy 164 93.18 242 91.32
2 Probably Would Buy 08 04.55 11 04.15
3 Might Or Might Not Buy 01 00.57 00 00.00
4 Probably Would Not Buy 00 00.00 00 00.00
5 Definitely Wouldn't Buy 00 00.00 00 00.00
6 No Response 03 01.70 12 04.53

Inference

In the above table represents that among 176 distributors, 164 were ready to buy the
product in future and very few were in the probable state to buy the product due less profit
margin and price provided by the company.

From the above table represents that 91.32% of the cattle owners were ready to buy
the product in future also, and 4.15% cattle owners will buy the product if they reduce the price
for the KS cattle feed.
FINDINGS

Customers’ perception about KS Cattle Feed and other brands in Dindigul district.

Distributors

 Many of the distributors were ready to recommend the KS Cattle feed product to others.
Only one percent were not ready to suggest KS to others.
 Fast moving product variety of KS cattle feed is Supreme pellet which is followed by
Delux pellet and slow moving product is Mash
 About half of the distributors’ opinion is to reduce the price range and very few were
suggested to improve proteins for the feeds and increase the quality for the product.
Availability and delivery of product can be at prompt period of time.
 Most of the distributors were ranked KS as first in terms of quality and very few ranked
SKM as first for its price and profit margin.
 Many cattle owners didn’t deal with other brands of cattle feed. Because cattles will get
addicted to particular feed. And few were preferred to maintain the current state of the
product.
 Productivity of milk by the cattle and price of the KS is preferred first and credit facility
and discounts were preferred to offer by the company.
 In other brands like SKM, Krishi and so on, price and product variety is preferred first
which is followed by the information offered by the company.
 More preference provided to the brand for price is SKM and other factors like door
delivery product variety, information offered, productivity KS is preferred first.
 KS is the second most preferred brand by the Distributors.

Cattle Owners

 Majority cattle owners were ready to suggest the product to others which represents the
expected output i.e., yield of milk by the cattles is high.
 Supreme pellet is the most preferred pellet by the customers and many of them unaware
about the other two varieties of KS Cattle Feed which is Delux and Mash.
 Most of the Cattle owners were suggested to reduce the price, increase the product
availability and delivery of product at right time.
 Many Cattle Owners were suggested to provide discounts and schemes for the product.
Customers’ satisfaction and influencing factors to deal with KS Cattle Feed.

Distributors

 Many distributors were very much satisfied with product range, size, quality and they
are dissatisfied with product smell.
 Distributors are moderately satisfied by price, profit margin and requirement of credit
period.
 Many distributors are dissatisfied with sales promotion, advertisement and customers
meeting.
 Distributors are satisfied with logistic service than the prompt delivery and supply of
product.
 Customers are satisfied with flexibility of order, after sales support and order processing
and customer needs are not satisfied.

Cattle Owners

 Cattle owners were satisfied with attractive package, size, quality and dissatisfied with
 product smell.
 Cattle Owners are satisfied with payment process credit period and slightly dissatisfied
with price.
 Customers are highly dissatisfied by promotional factors like advertisement, sales
promotion and meeting for the Cattle Owners. They are satisfied with delivery and
supply of the product.
 Cattle Owners are satisfied with yield of milk by cattles, order processing, defect
replacement and after sales support.

Customers purchase pattern and preference of KS Cattle Feed

Distributors

 Maximum Distributors are dealing with 50kg package and HDPE bags only very few
prefers 70kg pack
 Most dealt product variety by distributors are Supreme pellet and then delux.
 Distributors preferring door delivery as their order placing type.
 Maximum time taken to deliver the ordered product is 2 days and then 48 hours.
 Frequent order placing by the distributors are once in 15 days and dealers.
 Cattle Owners
 Most of the cattle owners prefers 50kg pack and not 60kg pack, preferring HDPE bags.
 Most preferred product by the cattle owners are supreme pellet and many were unaware
about the Delux and Mash.
 Direct visit is maximum order placing type preferred by the cattle owners.
 Time taken to deliver the ordered product is maximum 48 hrs minimum 5 hours.
 Order placing pattern for the cattle owners is once in 30 days followed by 15 days and
less than 10 days.
 Major preference for buying cattle feed is cattle becomes healthy and yield of milk is
good Quality of milk become high.
 Mode of payment for the customers is credit instalment for the maximum period of 30
days.

Conclusion

From this study researchers can able to understand the opinion and satisfaction of
customers and major factors, Cattle owners and distributors preference for buying KS cattle
feed products. To analyse the various factors influencing the customers to deal with the KS
Cattle feed. Objective of the studies were also achieved. The Collected data were analysed and
many required findings were made for this survey. KSE may concentrate on improving the
quality of the product by adding ingredients and reduce the price to make market leader in the
Dindigul district.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Carpenter, J.M. and Moore, M. (2006), “Consumer demographics, store attributes,
and retail format choice in the US grocery market”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 434-452.
2. Ghosh, P., Tripathi, V. and Kumar, A. (2010), “Customer expectations of store
attributes: a study of organized retail outlets in India”, Journal of Retail & Leisure
Property, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
3. Huddleston, P., Whipple, J., Mattick, R.N. and Lee, S.J. (2009), “Customer
satisfaction in food retailing: comparing specialty and conventional grocery stores”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 63-80.
4. Lavin, M. (2005), “Supermarket access and consumer well-being: the case of
Pathmark in Harlem”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 33 No. 5,
pp. 388-398.
5. Moore, C.M., Doyle, S.A. and Thomson, E. (2001), “Till shopping us do part – the
service requirements of divorced male fashion shoppers”, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 355-356.
6. Mulhern, F.J. (1997), “Retail marketing: from distribution to integration”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-124.
7. Rex, D. and Blair, A. (2003), “Unjust des(s)erts: food retailing and neighbourhood
health in Sandwell”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol.
31 No. 9,
pp. 459-465.
8. Sirgy, M.J. (2012), The Psychology of Quality of Life: Hedonic Well-Being, Life
Satisfaction, and Eudaimonia, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, NY.
9. Srinivasan, Mandyam M. (2007,)“Seven steps to building a lean supply chain.”, The
University of Tennessee, Sept. 12, 2007, www.Industry week.com
10. Wagner, T. (2007), “Shopping motivation revised: a means-end chain analytical
perspective”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No.
7, pp. 569-582.