Indian Products Limited (C&D)

Submitted to: Prof. Bhalendar Nayyar

By Group 9: Aayushi Singh (221002) Anvesh Reddy(221032) Akul Sharma(221015) Dev Sharma(221040) Divya Sharma (221043)

Cooking Medium Market :: Background

The total cooking medium market was 50,00,000 tons

Refined oils accounted for 2% of the total cooking medium tonnage or 3% of the total cooking oil tonnage, i.e., 1 lakh tons SPROs had a market share of only 0.3-0.5% of the total cooking medium tonnage
Bulk packs commanded major portion SPRO market - either stagnant or declining Increase in non groundnut oil brands

BACKGROUND
Market Share (%)

12% 16% 72%

Ghee and Butter Vanaspati Oils

IPL Market Research Objectives

Assess whether there was an opportunity for new brand in the SPRO market

If yes, determine the best product concept in terms of consumer appeal / acceptance

 To launch a non- groundnut oil in the SPRO market. Considered Options :Corn oil and Sunflower oil. The research conducted in three phases :
Phase 1 : Determining Attributes for Product Concepts

Phase 2 : Generate Concept Statements

Phase 3 : Administer Questionnaire

Attributes Identified :
Corn Oil Sunflower Oil

Colour Taste/Flavour Energy & Nutrition General Fitness

Easy Digestibility Energy & Nutrition General Fitness Economy in Use

The Product Concepts

P1- For general fitness and easy digestibility, eat food cooked in refined Sunflower oil. With high poly unsaturated fatty acids, it keeps your family healthy and active all through the day. P2- And now! Fry twice the number of puris in lesser amount of oil. Brand X of refined sunflower oil cooks more food in less oil. And fastly too! Save money. Use this oil. SUNFLOWER REFINED OIL P3- Corn is high in proteins. Use rich golden colour refined corn oil for energy and nutrition.

P4- We all like food that is tasty and keeps the family healthy and fit. Refined corn oil, popular all over the world, provides fitness and tasteJust like makai ki roti !

CORN REFINED OIL

Information Collected
Current and past usership of cooking medium and different brands Reasons for use & extent of brand loyalty Ranking of attributes Ratings of overall assessment Uniqueness, believability & buying intention Classification data of respondent

Methodology
Scaling methodRanking- Done on attributes; on product concepts on the basis of 4 variables -Rank Order in Comparative -Continuous Rating Scale in Non Comparative Ordinal : To Measure product attributes Interval : For Overall evaluation of product concepts Measures of Central Tendency Mean, median, mode used for ranking Regression Analysis- Bivariate and multivariate

Reason for using the current brand

Use of multiple cooking medium

Use of multiple SPRO brands

Brand loyalty status

Reasons for Using the Current Brand

Analysis
64% of the respondents made choice other than Force of Habit. 12% responded that they had no choice. 48% responded that the brand they were using was the best among the available brands. Only 4% of the respondents were satisfied with the current brand they were using.

Possibility of launching a new brand to satisfy remaining 60% respondents A large market potential

Number of Cooking Mediums Used

100% 78% 100%

30%

Four or more

Three or more

Two or more

One or more

It can thus be inferred that introducing another cooking medium would not be difficult in the kitchens of SPRO Consumers

Number of Refined Oil Brands Used

100% 74%

32% 4% Four or more Three or more Two or more One or more

74% of current SPRO users would not mind using another brand while 32% would readily welcome another brand. The new brand would not face difficulties from larger proportion of SPRO users.

Brand Loyalty Status

70% were found to have a low loyalty which favored a new brand. This provided enough confidence about good prospects for a new brand.

Rank of each of the 8 attributes/benefits in buying refined oil

Rating of each brand used and each product concept tested on overall basis & -each of the 8 attributes/benefits

On the Basis of Rank

The respondents were asked to rank the following 8 attributes and their median ranks were calculated. Purity
Color Odour Keepability of Goods

Taste Health Nutrition Digestibility

Attribute Importance

 50% of the respondents gave rank 1, 2 or 3 to taste. 60% of the respondents gave rank 1 or 2 to Health. 56% of the respondents gave rank 1 or 2 to purity. o On the basis of the ranks - two attributes which are important are health, purity and taste with a median rank of 2, 2 and 3 respectively o Median Rank equal to or above 4 not considered

On The Basis Of Ratings

Overall Rating - Dependent Variable Ratings on Eight Attributes - Independent Variables. Those attributes with a very low regression coefficient were not considered as important. According to this analysis, the attributes which were considered important were : Taste, Health, Odour and Purity. Y(Overall rating) = 0.02325 + 0.231(Taste) + 0.280(Health) + 0.185 (Odor) + 0.112(Purity) + 0.08(Digestion) + 0.078 (Color) + 0.028 (Keepability) + .010(Nutrition)

Multiple Regression Analysis

On The Basis Of Ratings

H0 : The given factors have no impact on the overall rating H1 : The given factors have impact on the overall rating LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE : 5% , Tcri 1.96

Variable Taste Health Odour Purity Digestion Colour Keep Ability Nutrition

Regression Coefficient 0.23148 0.28034 0.18512 0.11230 0.08019 0.07846 0.02801 0.01001

Standard Error 0.04970 0.06252 0.06211 0.05381 0.05123 0.05597 0.05319 0.06084

T Value 4.658 4.484 2.980 2.087 1.565 1.402 0.527 0.164

Important Attributes
Health, Taste and Purity assessed as important attributes. were

Odour - assessed as an important attribute through Ratings approach whereas it was not considered important according to the Rankings approach.

The overall evaluation of customer acceptance of the four product concepts involves four measures :

Overall Rating

Buying Intention
Uniqueness Believability

Analysis for selecting appropriate Product Concept :

1 2
Understand the Relationship between the four overall measures
Ranking of Product Concepts

Selecting the Best Concept

 researchers to obtain correlation between them

Relationship Between 4 Variables Variables were measured on interval scale which enabled

the

High positive correlation between overall rating and buying intention meant that if overall rating was high then buying intention would also be high but buying intention was not affected much by uniqueness and believability Uniqueness and believability had high negative correlation that is more the uniqueness in the product, less will be its believability Hence , Buying Intention was a dependent variable and Uniqueness, Believability And Overall Rating were independent variables

Ranking of product concepts was done on the basis of measure of central tendency (mean) and then differences in mean calculated for 2 favorable product concepts P1 and P4 Product concepts (P1, P2, P3, P4) were ranked as per their mean score
BUYING INTENTION 3.34 3.28 3.13 2.98

Ranking Product Concepts

OVERALL RATING P4 P1 P3 P2 3.69 3.47 3.18 3.02

BELIEVABILITY 3.5 3.48 3.62 3.08

UNIQUENESS 3.16 2.28 3.2 3.02

Selecting the Best Product Concept

I. P2 was ranked lowest on overall rating, buying intention, believability and 2nd lowest on uniqueness. P2 was dropped. II. P3 lowest on overall rating and buying intention, but ranked top on believability and uniqueness. Dropped as low on important attributes. III. P4 was ranked 1st in overall rating and buying intention; 2nd in believability and uniqueness. It was thus considered to be favorable for further consideration. IV. P1 close to P4 on all attributes except uniqueness. Taken up for further consideration.

Assessing Competitive Position of Product Concepts

Usage of two techniques:
Mean Rating Approach MDS(Multi Dimensional S Calling) Approach

Mean Rating Approach Mean ratings of 2 existing brands and 4 product concepts on 8 attributes and overall basis 23 respondents P4s overall rating same as Postman and P1s overall rating same as Saffola

MDS Approach Same data processed 2 dimensional map obtained

Identification of Axis

Perceptual Map of Existing Brands and New Product Concepts

High Taste & General Purpose Postman

P4

P3
Therapeutic/Medicinal P2

General Health/Nutritious

Saffola

P1

Low Taste & Special Purpose

Perceptual map indicating concept factors based on benefits indicates: Concept P1 is perceived as a product that is more towards serving special purpose and low taste Concept P2 is perceived as a more nutritious product Concepts P3 & P4 are perceived as products having nutritional value and moderately tastier than other products

Recommendations
It is recommended to introduce a new brand of SPRO Concepts P1 and P4 offer maximum promise For P1, demand assessment exercise suggested, If found sufficient inspite of Saffolas presence, go ahead with the concept For P4, stronger taste rationale, to compete with Postman effectively Product test using Corn Oil suggested