Marketing Project on Eureka Forbes

A PROJECT REPORT ON “To indicate the importance of consumer based brand equity on the consumers’ perception of brand Aquaguard and to suggest ways to increase lead generation through BTL activities for Eureka Forbes Limited”

Completed at

In Partial Fulfillment for the requirement of the Award of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management 2009-2011 SUBMITTED TO:

SUBMITTED BY:

Prof. Asha Sharma

Neha Tomar

Project Guide

PGDBM II Sem

FMS-IRM

Jaipur

CERTIFICATE Certified that the project report entitled “To indicate the importance of consumer based brand equity on the consumer’s perception of the brand Aquaguard

and to suggest measures to increase the lead

generation through BTL activities for Eureka Forbes Limited” is a record of project done independently by Miss Neha Tomar under my guidance and supervision and that it has not previously formed the basis for the award of any degree, fellowship or associate ship to him.

Date: Prof. Asha Sharma

2

DECLARATION I hereby declare that this project entitled “ To indicate the importance of consumer based brand equity

on the consumer’s perception of

brand

Aquaguard and to suggest measures to increase lead generation through BTL activities for Eureka Forbes limited”

is a bonafide record of work done by me

during the course of summer project work and that it has not previously formed the basis for the award to me for any degree/diploma, associate ship, fellowship or other similar title of any other institute.

Date:

Neha Tomar

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Summer Project on “To indicate the importance of consumer based brand equity on the consumers’ perception of brand Aquaguard and to suggest ways to increase lead generation through BTL activities for Eureka Forbes Limited.”offered a great learning experience. During the tenure of this project, I was fortunate to have interacted with people, who in their own capacities have encouraged and guided me. Firstly, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to HR Department of Eureka forbes Ltd. for providing me the opportunity to undergo summer training in Marketing Department of such a reputed organization. Working with one of the most renowned organizations was a great learning experience. My sincere thanks go to Mr. Tapan Khurana (Area head of marketing) for trusting my potential by giving me such a valuable project. I would also thank him for providing his guidance and support in completing this project. Without his support & critical evaluation this project could not have been completed successfully. I extend my heartiest thanks to Brig. S. K. Gaur (Director FMS-IRM), FMSIRM faculty members for their regular assistance all through the project and I would also thank Prof. Asha Sharma, (Project Guide, FMS-IRM), for the direction and purpose she gave to this project through her invaluable insights, which constantly inspired me to think beyond the obvious.

4

Neha Tomar PGDBM II Sem.

Table of contents:  Certificate  Declaration  Acknowledgment  Table of contents  Executive summary  Chapter 1 • Introduction • Problem statement • Objectives of the study • Hypothesis • Research methodology • Type of research • Research approach • Sampling • Data collection • Statistical tools • Limitation of the study • Review of the literature 

Chapter 2

• Profile of the organization

 Chapter 3 • Analtysis of the brand equity attributes • Analysis of the consumer behavior influencers • Analysis of the BTL activities

 Chapter 4 • Summary of the findings

5

• Conclusion • Suggestions for BTL activities

 Chapter 5 • Bibliography • Webliography

 Chapter 6 Appendix

List of Diagrams and Tables Figa.1) model based division of consumer responses on willingness to update the product with the same brand next time Figa.2)overall view of consumer responses on willingness to update the product with the same brand next time Figa.3) model based division of consumer responses on willingness to recommend the brand to others. Figa.4)overall view of consumer consumer responses on willingness to recommend the brand to others Figa.5)model based division of consumer responses on being satisfied with product during use Figa.6)overall view of consumer responses on being satisfied with product during use Figa.7) model based division of consumer responses on willingness to pay a higher price for a product of the same brand Figa.8)overall view of consumer responses on willingness to pay a higher price for the brand as compared to other brands. Figb.1)model based division of consumer responses on being provided safe and clean drinking water Figb.2)overall view of consumer responses on being provided safe and clean drinking water Figb.3)model based division of consumer responses on aquaguard being a good value for money product Figb.4)overall view of consumer responses on aquaguard being a good value for money product Figb.5) model based division of consumer responses on the reliability of aquaguard brand Figb.6)overall view of consumer responses on the reliability of aquaguard brand Figb.7)model based division of consumer responses on Aquaguard being an established brand Fig b.8)overall view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being an established brand Figc.1)model based division of consumer responses on Aquaguard being a quality product Figc.2)overall view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being a quality product Figc.3)model based division of consumer responses on being satisfied with after sales service of the product

6

Figc.4)overall view of consumer responses on being satisfied with after sales service of the product Figc.5)model based division of consumer responses on aquaguard being the best choice Figc.6)overall view of consumer responses on aquaguard being the best choice Figc.7)model based view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being innovative in technology Figc.8)overall view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being innovative in technology FigD.1)awareness of difference between RO and UV technology among consumers FigD.2)importance of special attractive offers in buying(based on consumer responses) FigD.3)Importance of ISI certification for buying a water purifier(based on consumer responses) FigD.4)importance of IMA certification for buying water purifier(based on consumer responses FigD.5)importance of water testing prior to buying(based on consumer responses) FigD.6)importance of after sales service in purchase decision FigD.7)consumer expectation of appropriate maintenance cost(based on consumer responses) FigD.8)importance of product to be electricitry consumption efficient(based on consumer responses FigD.9)sources through which consumer came across the product(based on consumer responses) FigD.10)whether or not display at canopy prompt buying(based on consumer responses) FigD.11)consumer willingness to continue relationship with EFL because of free service camps FigD12)consumer response on whether information is provided during free service camps FigD.13)consumer intention to exchange old products with new ones FigD.14)intention to buy other products of eureka forbes Table 1) mean ranks of all the attributes of brand equiy constructs and chi sqare statistic Table1.1)average maen rank or brand equity rating of brand loyalty and brand image Table1.2)average mean rank or brand eqity rating of perceived quality Table 2)table for obtained mean ranks and sum of ranks through mann whitney test as well as mann whitney u statistic

7

Executive summmary: Eureka Forbes ltd. was founded in 1982 as a joint venture between Tata Sons’ Forbes Gokak and Sweden’s Electrolux. The SP group however, fully acquired the company in 2002-03 when it bought out the Tatas’ holding the Forbes gokak and subsequently, Electrolux’s in the joint venture. This company of the Shapoorji Pallongi (SP) group’s Forbes gokak ltd. has succeeded in making its centre piece aqua guard brand synonymous with home water purification. Over 71 million liters of aqua guard water are consumed daily across the country, the model also being the only purifier to be endorsed by the Indian medical association. Besides, EFL has introduced the world’s first universal water purifier aquaguard total Sensa, which auto senses and selects the optimum purification technology. EFL has expanded its portfolio with security solutions, including home security intrusion alarm, excess control, fire alarm, and surveillance systems. The company additionally offers industrial solutions, such as industry water purifiers,

8

commercial and industrial vaccum cleaners, hard floor cleaning and maintenance machines, high pressure cleaners, and cleaning and hygiene products. The objective of this study is to identify the key driver of the customer based brand equity for the brand Aquaguard (brand loyalty, brand image, perceived quality) thereby affecting the customers’ perception of the brand and to suggest measures to increase lead generation through BTL activities for Eureka Forbes Limited. Broadly it can be classified in the following phases (1) A qualitative study defining the parameters to be measured and pre testing of the questionnaire (2) designing and administrating a questionnaire survey to assess the response of the respondents among our representative set of customers. Friedman test was used to find out the significant mean ranks for the different attributes falling within the brand equity constructs. The average mean rank or brand equity rating for each brand equity construct was then calculated and compared. We could conclude that Brand Loyalty had the least, Brand image had the second highest and perceived quality had the highest brand equity rating. Brand loyalty scoring the least brand equity rating is a logical issue because even when the customer seems to be satisfied with the product they don’t seem to be too loyal. It’s possible reasons are1. Low switching cost for customer i.e. cheaper options available for functionally similar products 2. Dissatisfaction among existent customers because of inefficient after sales service by the company. Therefore steps should be taken to make existing customers more brand loyal. Perceived quality got the highest rating and this is justified since it is the perceived quality of the product that is when linked with satisfaction has a positive

9

influence on consumer purchase intention. Hence Eureka Forbes should try to prevent creating a shoddy image of product in terms of quality and service. Brand image score was quite close to perceived quality and thus reflects its importance. The brands with high brand equity seem to have higher brand associations. Null hypothesis designed for the study states that for the consumer of an established brand of a health product like water purifier, the perception of the quality and the technology used in different product varieties (RO and UV) does not differ significantly. Mann Whitney test was used and was found out that RO products scored higher mean ranks than UVproducts in both respects (quality as well as technology) even when both the types of products belong to the same Aquaguard brand. This signifies that the perception of the quality and technology of the product is independent of the brand name a customer owns and RO products seem to be perceived as better in quality and technology as compared to UV products which supports the increasingly growing faith of buyers in RO products.Although its interesting to note that this research also found out that approximately 60% of those surveyed were unaware of the actual difference between the RO and UV technology. BTL activities aimed at increasing the brand image and brand awareness of Eureka Forbes water purifiers through – 1 organizing free service camps for customers across city. 2 free aqua guard installation. 3 making customer aware of new products of the company and explain their need to them.

10

Activities like free service camps help in strengthening ties with the customers and increase satisfaction level.BTL activities can be better designed by properly understanding the consumer buying behavior

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 80% of diseases in India are caused by water borne microorganisms. This is true in rural as well as urban India. However, awareness of health risks linked to unsafe water is still very low among the rural population. The few who treat resort to boiling or use domestic candle filters. In comparison the urban Indian is definitely more health conscious and understands the necessity of purifying water before it is fit for consumption. Even so, it is estimated that roughly 7% of urban Indians use non manual water purifiers. More Indians need to be become aware of the importance of installing water purifiers .Though quite a few city dwellers still boil water ,many are still switching over to modern domestic water purifiers.Electrical or chemical based home purification systems are most suitable for urban households because they require little or no manual operation and

11

depending on the technology can eliminate biological toxins, chemical toxins and excessive salts. The main contaminants are however microorganisms. UV purifiers and advanced chemical based systems deal effectively with viruses and bacteria. This is one of the reasons why UV based purifiers are most widely used water purifiers in India. It is estimated that around 80% of urban dwellers do not purify tap water. Many of them are from the low income strata and cannot afford UV or RO purifier.They are the potential buyers of economical but effective chemical purifiers.This is the market that HUL and Eureka Forbes are tapping aggressively.Chemical purifiers, together account for 20% of water purifiers sold.Both are becoming increasingly popular as they are affordable and effective.The two brands are reported to be growing at 100% per annum. Also they do not run on electricity and are ideal for places where power supply is unpredictable.Neither do they need continuous water supply. It is estimated that roughly two thirds belong to UV water purifier while one third is shared between RO and chemical purifiers. In the UV market segment, Aquaguard is the clear market leader with 68% market share. Other brands are Philips intelligent water purifier and Kent’s RO. The UV purifier market is growing at a slower rate than chemical purifiers. RO purifiers which are rather expensive and not the preferred option in many areas have a smaller share of the market. In the RO segment Eureka Forbes is the major player with 60% market share while 40% share is with Kent. That the Indian market is lucrative is evident from the fact that players such as Kent and HUL have stepped into the market

Problem statement • Building strong brand equity. • Maximize brand value . •

To Increase sales .

Objectives of the study

12

•

To find out the brand equity rating for each of the three dimensions of consumer based brand equity (i.e Brand loyalty, Brand image and Percieved quality) for the brand Aquaguard.

•

To obtain a comparative account of the consumer perception of the brand based on division of respondents into RO and UV consumers.

• To identify the key factor or attributes that are central to customer’s mind with respect to a water purifier and thus influence his buying decision. • To give suggestions to increase lead generation through BTL activities

HYPOTHESIS H0: For the consumer of an established brand of a health product like water purifier,his perception of the quality and the technology used in different products (RO and UV) of that same brand does not differ significantly. H1: For the consumer of an established brand of a health product like water purifier,his perception of the quality and the technology used in different products (RO and UV) of that same brand differs significantly.

Research methodology •

Marketing research is the systematic identification, collection, analysis, and dissemination of information for the purpose of assisting management in decision making related to the identification and solution of problems and opportunities in marketing. The objective of this research is to identify the factors which affect the consumer purchase decisions and also to identify the key driver of customer based brand equity shaping the consumers’ perception of the brand Aquaguard.

13

• The result of this study could serve as a decision making tool to help Eureka Forbes managers maximize the value of their brand. (A) Type of research (A.1) Descriptive: Descriptive research design is a scientific method which involves observing the behaviour of a subject without influencing it in any way.For the purpose of this study; descriptive research design is used

(A.2) Research approach •

Deductive approach has to do with the building up of theory and hypothesis after reading literatures i.e. testing theory.For the purpose of the thesis, deductive approach was used.

(A.3) Sampling (A.3.1) Type of sampling •

Judgemental or purposive sampling was done . (A.3.2) Sample size

•

100 respondents within the boundaries of Jaipur city.

(A.4) Type of data collection technique (A.4.1) Primary data- Questionnaire

14

•

Survey was conducted in the Jaipur city of Rajasthan. A sample size of 100 respondents( company’s customers) was taken for the purpose of the study.

(A.4.2) Secondary data •

Secondary data for the purpose of the study was collected from internet and magazines.

(A.4.3) Data Collection The project was carried out in two phases where the information was collected from various sources and analyzed in order to assess the importance of different attributes of brand equity on the consumer’s perception of the brand Aquaguard and also to identify the customers purchasing guiding forces, followed by analyzing and devising below the line activities for Eureka Forbes Ltd.

• Qualitative study defining the parameters to be measured and pre testing of the questionnaire • Designing and administrating a questionnaire survey to assess the brand equity attributes and factors affecting customers buying decision among a representative set of customers.

(A.5) Statistical tools used

15

(A.5.1) SPSS-15 •

Mann Whitney U test- It is a non parametric test that is used to compare the means of two samples that come from the same population. It is done for 2 independent samples

•

Friedman test- A non parametric test used to test that the multiple ordinal responses come from the same population. It is done for related samples

•

Cronbach reliability analysis- to check the reliability of the scale.

2.4 Limitations of the Study • Time constraint • Small sample size • Limited area of coverage

2.5 Review of literature Aaker (1991) view brand equity as a multidimensional concept which is made up of

perceived qualities, brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand association and

other propriety asset A similar conceptualization was proposed by Keller (1993). According to Keller (1993), consumer based brand equity consist of two dimensions, brand knowledge and brand awareness. Cob-walgren et al (1995) based their study on customer based perceptual measure of brand equity. Their study adopted three of Aaker (1991) perceptual component

16

of brand equity i.e. brand awareness, brand association and perceived quality. They tested whether brand equity has an affect on brand perception, intention and attitude. The result of their study found out that brand equity has effect on perception, intention and attitude. Low and lamb Jr (2000) and Prasad and Dev (2000) also adopted four of Aaker (1991) component i.e. brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand association. Yoo et al (2000) adopted three of Aaker (1991) component i.e. perceived quality, brand association and brand loyalty. Their study suggested and tested a model and the result revealed that these dimensions contribute to brand equity. Simon and Sullivan (1993) claim that the best method for measuring brand equity depends on the objective market based data which give room for comparison overtime and across firm. Simon and Sullivian (1993) used the word “incremental utility” to refer to brand equity. Park and Srinivasan (1994) refer to brand equity as the distinction between the overall brand preference and the multi attribute preference depending on the objectively measured attribute level. Agarwal and Rao (1996) also refer to brand equity as the total quality and choice intention. From the above it is clear that brand equity is viewed in different ways by different researchers.

17

COMPANY PROFILE Eureka Forbes is Rs 10 billion multi-product multi-channel corporations which is a part for Shaporji Pallonji group and employs over 7000 employees. It has evolved as a leader in domestic and industrial water purification systems, vacuum cleaners, air purifiers and security solutions. Eureka Forbes were the first to introduce domestic [water purifiers] – the ''Aquaguard'' - model - as well as [vacuum cleaners] to India in the 1980s. In order to introduce these previously unknown products to a society in which nationwide commercial campaigns were impossibility, the company had to pioneer another innovation - direct selling. The corps of suit-clad Eureka Forbes salesmen were the first such in the country and were a tremendous success. They are now Asia's largest direct selling organization with a 5,000 strong direct sales force touching 1.25 million Indian homes and adding 1,500 customers daily. Such was the success of Eureka Forbes that ''Aquaguard'' has now become a synonym for water purifier in India, like ''Xerox'' for [photocopying] . "The promise was clear: To create a company that wouldn't be about bricks, mortar or sales graphs, but driven by something far more potent. Something that would stand the test of time relationships."

18

3.1 DIRECT MARKETING: Eureka Forbes followed the globally 'tried and tested' direct selling route for marketing its products in India, thus becoming one of the first direct selling companies in India. Vacuum cleaners and water purifiers were rather new concepts for Indian consumers, who had till then followed only the traditional methods of cleaning and filtering. Therefore, Eureka Forbes had to first establish the concept of vacuum cleaners and water purifiers in India before it could sell 'Eureka' as a brand. The company believed that its core strength was its people. It employed dynamic, highly motivated individuals, called 'Eurochamps,' who projected the image of 'The friendly man from Eureka Forbes. Thus, for the average Indian consumer, Eureka Forbes became synonymous with the smartly dressed salesman who came to their houses and cleaned up things in a jiffy or showed how air/water purifiers were indispensable. Eurochamps initially targeted the metros but soon began visiting smaller cities and towns also Commenting on the decision to diversify into bottled water, company sources said that it was only to strengthen the core products by capitalizing on their brand image. Goklaney said, "In the water category, I will conduct activities which strengthen my core products. How I do that and what I do is a matter of strategy." According to company sources, Eureka Forbes not only had the financial strength, but also a strong network of sales executives to push its new products into the market. The company's decision to enter the retail business was primarily the result of its launch of 'Tornado' vacuum cleaners and 'Aquaflo' water purifiers in 1995. Eureka Forbes had utilized the retail route for this range, mainly to cater to the industrial segment. Over the years, the retail business assumed greater significance and by 1999, around 5% of the company's sales came from the 2500-strong dealer network.

19

In 1999, Eureka Forbes Ltd. (Eureka Forbes), the leading vacuum cleaner and water/air purifier Equipment Company, announced a major policy change that came as a surprise to the Indian corporate world. The company, regarded as the pioneer of direct marketing in India, was planning to focus more on the retailing business in the future. Commenting on this decision, S Goklaney, Managing Director, Eureka Forbes, said, "Direct sales permits us to exploit only the top end of the market." This move was in accordance with the company's plans to increase the visibility of its products. The company planned to make its products available in retail outlets through its dealer network, spread across 2,600 dealers.

3.2 Eureka Forbes – “Friend for Life” Customers have always been the centre of business for EFL, they strive to be in close and constant touch with there customers listening to them and understanding there needs. Eureka Forbes have also taken initiative to educate there customers to change there perceptions and practices. According to the EFL officials “A sale is only the beginning of the relationship”, however company makes special efforts to let the bonds of friendship endure through there service. Everyone at EFL strives hard to make a customer there “friend for life”. Eureka Forbes have rechristened there offices to CRS Customer Response centre making them the hub of all customer centric efforts. A significant part of there revenues comes from relationship marketing including service contracts, spares and accessories sales, product up gradation and new references. As more channels to reach out to customers were introduced, organization was restructured to harmonize these multiple avenues of interaction and present a single face to the customer - any customer is everyone's customer under this process of 'Convergence'.

20

3.3 Vision: A happy, healthy, safe and pollution-free environment based on trust and lasting relationship with customers.

3.4 Mission: To build sustainable relationships with customers as their “friend for life” by satisfying their evolving health, hygiene, safety and lifestyle through our people whose entrepreneurial spirit and ambition is fuelled by the culture of people, learning , earning and fun. Our products and services that reflect innovation become quality benchmark and provide value for money. Our policies and practices that are fare, transparent and constantly improved to maximise stakeholder satisfaction and achieve market leadership.

3.5 Product range (water purifiers): 3.5.1 Aquaguard: Economy  Aquaguard classic  Aquaguard compact Special usages  Aquaguard booster  Aquaguard hi-flo  Aquaguard total NF  Aquaguard ultra  Aquaguard total RO Total protection  Aquaguard Gold Nova

21



Aquaguard Total Sensa

RO Based purifiers  Aquaguard Reviva

Pre- testing of questionnaire Pre testing of the questionnaire was done to check the internal validity of the questionnaire. This is necessary as to understand how well the attributes weigh with respect to each other and it has to do with the Cronbac design of the study as to what should be measured and h’s alpha N what should not be measured.Cronbach’s alpha .711 12 analysis was used for this purpose.

Reliability Statistics

*Cronbach’s Alpha of .711 signifies adequate amount of reliability of scale.

22



Analysis for the Perceived quality attributes:

c.1) Respondents’ perception of Aqua guard as a quality product according to the• Model they use

23

Bar Chart model

30

RO UV

Count

20

26

10

19

13

12 10

9 6

5

0 disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

quality

65.45% of the UV consumers whereas 68.7% of the RO consumers more or less agree that Aquaguard is a quality product.

c.2)Overall analysis :

24

q uality

50

Frequency

40

30

47

20

10

22 18 13

0 disa gre e

ca n't say

ag re e

stro ng ly agree

quality

Strongly disagree 0%

Disagree 18%

Can’t say 13%

Agree

Strongly

47%

agree 22%

25

c.3) Respondents’ view about the after sales service being upto the expectation on the basis of: • Model used Bar Chart model

30

RO UV

Count

20

28 23

10

11 8

9

6

6 4

3

2

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

service

The above chart shows that 55.55%% of the RO customers while 58.18% of the UV customers more or less agree to being satisfied with the after sales service

c.4)Overall analysis:

26

service

60

50

Frequency

40

30 51

20

10

20 14 9

6

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

service

Strongly disagree 14%

Disagree 20%

Can’t say 9%

Agree

Strongly

51%

agree 6%

c.5) Respondents’ perception of Aquaguard as their best choice on the basis of:

27

• Model used B ar C hart m odel

25

RO UV 20

Count

15

21

10

20

15 11

5

9 5

4

9

4

2

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

choice

63.33% of the UV customers whereas 64.37% of the RO customers more or less agree that aquaguard is their best choice

c.6)Overall analysis:

28

ch oice

50

Frequency

40

30

41

20

24

10

20

7

8

0 stron gly d isa gree

d isa gree

can 't sa y

ag ree

stron gly a gree

cho ice

Strongly disagree 7%

disagree

Can’t say

agree

8%

20%

41%

Strongly agree 24%

.

29

c.7) Respondents’perception of Aquaguard as a technologically innovative product on the basis of the Model used Bar Chart model

25

RO UV

Count

20

15 25

10 17

5

9

2

9

16

10

9

3

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

technology

From the above it can be inferred that nearly 73% of the RO customers and nearly 64% of the UV customers more or less agree that aquaguard is innovative in technology

c.8)overall analysis

30

technology

50

Frequency

40

30

42

20

26

10

18 12

0

2

strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

technology

Strongly disagree 2%

disagree

Can’t say

Agree

12%

18%

42%

Strongly agree 26%

31

 Analysis

of the brand image attributes

b.5)Respondents’perception of Aquaguard as a trustworthy and reliable brand • on the basis of model used: B ar C hart m odel

30

RO UV

Count

20

27 23

10

9 6 3

8

7

9

5

3

0 strong ly disagree

disagree

can't say

agre e

strongly agree

trust

65.4% of the UV customers and nearly 68 % of the RO customers more or less agree to Aquaguard being a trustworthy brand

32

(b.6)overall analysis tru s t

50

Frequency

40

30 49

20

10 16

16 12

7

0 s tro n g ly d is a g re e d is a g re e

c a n 't s a y

a g re e

s tro n g ly a g re e

tru s t

Strongly disagree 7%

disagree

Can’t say

Agree

16%

12%

49%

Strongly agree 16%

33

b.7)Respondents’perception of Aquaguard as a well established brand as compared to others • on the basis of the model used: Bar Chart model

30

RO UV

Count

20

28

10

20

10 7

7

11

8

5 3

0

1

strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

established Nearly 71% of the UV and 66.66% of the RO customers more or less agree that their brand is well established as compared to other brands.

34

b.8)overall analysis:

e s ta b lis h e d

50

Frequency

40

30

48

20

21

10 15 12 4

0 stro n g ly d is a g ree

d isa g re e

c a n 't s a y

a g re e

stron g ly a g re e

e s ta b lis h e d

Strongly disagree 4%

disagree

Can’t say

agree

12%

15%

48%

Strongly agree 21%

35

b.1)Respondents perception of Aquaguard as being able to provide clean and safe drinking water • on the basis of model used

Bar Chart model

30

RO UV

Count

20

29

22

10

8

7

6

6

7

7

5

3

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

prom ise

Nearly 64% of the RO customers and nearly 65% of the UV customers moreor less agree that aquaguard has provided them safe and clean drinking water.

36

b.2)overall analysis

p ro m is e

60

50

Frequency

40

30 51

20

10 11

13

14

11

0 s tro n g ly d is a g re e d is a g re e

c a n 't s a y

a g re e

s tro n g ly a g re e

p ro m is e

Strongly disagree

disagree

Can’t say

Agree

Strongly agree

37

11%

13%

11%

51%

14%

b.3)Respondents perception of Aquaguard as a value for money product • On the basis of model used

Bar Chart model

30

RO UV

Count

20

27 22

10

9 4

5

6

9 6

7 5

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

vfm

38

The above chart shows that 65.5%% of the UV customers and 64.44% of the RO customers

more or less agree that the brand has provided good value

for money.

b.4)Overall analysis: v fm

50

Frequency

40

30 49

20

10 16

15 11

9

0 s tro n g ly d is a g re e

d is a g re e

c a n 't s a y

a g re e

s tro n g ly a g re e

v fm

Strongly disagree

disagree

Can’t say

Agree

Strongly agree

39

9%

15%

11%

49%

16%



Analysis of the brand loyalty attributes

•

(a.1) Respondents’ willingness to update their water purifier with same brand next time on the basis of model used

40

Bar Chart model

30

RO UV

Count

20

29

23

10

10 7 4

4

7

7 5

4

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

updation

61.8% of the UV customers and 66.67% of the RO customers more or less agree to update their water purifier with the same brand next time.

(a.2)overall analysis:

41

updation

60

50

Frequency

40

30 52

20

10

17 8

12

11

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

updation

Strongly disagree 8%

disagree

Can’t say

agree

11%

17%

52%

Strongly agree 12%

(a.3) Respondents’ willingness to recommend the brand to others

42

• model used

Bar Chart model

40

RO UV

Count

30

20 31

21

10

10 5

5

6

6

7 4

5

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

recommend

62.2% of the RO customers and nearly 65.45% of the UV customers more or less agreeto recommending the brand to others.

(a.4)overall analysis

43

re c o m m e n d

60

50

Frequency

40

30 52

20

10

16 10

12

10

0 s tro n g ly d isa g re e

d is a g re e

ca n 't s a y

a g re e

stro n g ly a g re e

re c o m m e n d

Strongly disagree 10%

Disagree 16%

Can’t say 10%

agree

Strongly

52%

agree 12%

44

(a.5)Respondents’ view on being satisfied during use of the product: • on the basis of model used

Bar Chart m odel

40

RO UV

Count

30

20 31 27

10 12

0

2

4

strongly disagree

6

disagree

7 4

can't say

3

agree

4

strongly agree

satisfaction

63.63% of the UV customers while 66.3% of the RO customers more or less agree that aquaguard has satisfied them during use

(a.6)overall analysis

45

s a tis fa c tio n

60

50

Frequency

40

30

58

20

10

18 11 7

6

0 s tro n g ly d is a g re e d is a g re e

c a n 't s a y

a g re e

s tro n g ly a g re e

s a tis fa c tio n

Strongly disagree 6%

disagree 18%

Can’t say 11%

agree

Strongly

58%

agree 7%

46

(a.7)Respondents’ willingness to pay a higher price for the brand as compared to others. • on the basis of model used:

Bar Chart model

30

RO UV

Count

20

26

10

20

10 7 5

7

7

6

5

7

0 strongly disagree

disagree

can't say

agree

strongly agree

premium

60% of the UVcustomers while nearly 58% of the RO customers more or less agree to pay a higher price for the Aquaguard brand as compared to others

47

(a.8)overall analysis: p re m iu m

50

Frequency

40

30

45

20

10

18 14

13

10

0 s tro n g ly d is a g re e d is a g re e

c a n 't s a y

a g re e

s tro n g ly a g re e

p r e m iu m

Strongly disagree 10%

disagree 18%

Can’t say 14%

agree

Strongly

45%

agree 13%

48

Brand equity rating analysis •

Friedman test

was used to calculate the mean ranks of all the brand attributes in order to identify the most important brand equity attribute which affects the consumer perception of the brand. This test was conducted directly with the help of the software SPSS. The data was inserted in the software and the test was applied for calculating the mean ranks for the components of different attributes of brand equity.

• Specified alpha level is .05

Table 1 Attributes Updation Recommend Satisfaction Premium Promise Value for money Trustworthy Established Quality Service Choice Technology

Mean Rank 5.85 6.14 6.06 5.15 6.57 6.55 6.73 6.89 7.51 5.67 7.29 7.02

Test Statistics(a) N Chi-Square Df Asymp. Sig.

100 42.367 11 .000

49

 The t statistic shows the asymp sig as .000 which is less than the significance

level of .05. Small significance level indicates that at least one of the variables differs from others. Because a chi square statistic as extreme as 58.63 with 11 degrees of freedom is unlikely to have arisen by chance we conclude that customer hold different preferences for the different attributes of the brand constructs. 

Overall brand equity rating of brand loyalty, brand image and perceived quality:It can be calculated by taking out the average mean ranks of all the attributes related to a particular component.

Table 1.1 Brand loyalty and brand image Updation

6.11

Recommend

6.14

Satisfaction

6.06

Price premium

5.79

overall mean rank for brand loyalty

6.025

Safe and clean water

6.57

Value for money

6.55

Trustworthy

6.73

Established

6.89

Overall maen rank for brand image

6.68

50

Table 1.2 Perceived quality Quality

7.51

Service

5.67

Choice

7.29

Innovative

7.02

Overall mean rank for perceived quality

6.79

51

 Hence, Brand loyalty showed the least brand equity rating while Perceived

quality showed the highest brand equity rating which indicates that the perceived quality of a product has the greatest influence on the consumers perception of the brand with brand image following it. But there is a small difference between the brand equity rating of both perceived quality and model Quality RO UV Total Technology RO UV Total

N

Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 45 56.23 2530.50 55 45.81 2519.50 100 45 56.59 2546.50 55 45.52 2503.50 100 brand image which shows that these two things have almost equal impact and both are extremely important affecting the consumers perception of the brand.

Table2 - Hypothesis testing H0: ROqt═ UVqt H1: ROqt≠ UVqt Ranks Test Statistics(a)

52

Grouping Variable: model The p values Mann-Whitney U of .043 979.500 963.500 and . Wilcoxon W 2519.500 2503.500 045 are Z less -2.021 -2.000 than the Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) alpha .043 .045 level of .05 and hence we can reject our null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Thus we can say that the UV and the RO product customers differ significantly in the perception about the quality and the technology used in their respective products. From the sum of ranks shown in the above table we can conclude that the RO products seem to be perceived as better in quality and technology then the UV products. quality

Technology

53

Part 2 ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

D.1) Awareness of the difference between the RO technology and UV technology

54

INFERENCE: Approximately 60% of consumers are not aware of the actual difference between RO and UV technology while 40% of people are aware of the difference.

D.2)Consideration of free gifts or other attractive offer at the time of buying.

55

INFERENCE: 29% of consumers agree that they did consider special attractive offers at the time of purchase of water purifier while 71% people did not consider it.

56

D.3) IMPORTANCE OF I.S.I. CERTIFICATION IN MAKING BUYING DECISION

INFERENCE: 79% of the total consumers consider that I.S.I. certification is extremely important while 21% of the total consumers consider that I.S.I. certification is important.

57

D.4) Importance of IMA (Indian Medical Association) endorsement in buying a water purifier

INFERENCE: 10% of the consumers consider that I.M.A. endorsement is extremely important, 39% of the consumers states that I.M.A. endorsement is important 46% of the consumers are not sure.While 5% don’t consider it important.

D.5)

Importance of water testing prior to buying

58

INFERENCE: 13% of consumers thinks that water testing is not necessary and 87% of consumers thinks that water testing is necessary before buying the product.

59

D.6)Importance of after sales service as a consideration in purchase decision

INFERENCE For 60% of the customers, after sales service is an extremely important consideration with respect to water purifier, for 37% it was important while 3% are not sure of it

60

D.7) Appropriate maintenance cost for water purifier

INFERENCE 12% consumers think that Rs0-300 is the appropriate maintenance cost, 61% consumers think that Rs300-800 is the appropriate maintenance cost and 27% consumers think that Rs800 thatRs800-1500 is the appropriate maintenance cost for water purifier annually.

61

D.8) Importance of electricity consumption efficiency of a water purifier

INFERENCE: 53% of the consumers consider that electricity consumption efficiency of water purifier is extremely important and 39% of the consumers thinks that electricity consumption efficiency of water purifier is important.8% are not sure of it.

62

D.9)

Sources of awareness of water purifier

INFERENCE: 18% of consumers got aware of the product through references, 16 % through newspaper/TV, 24% through product display and 37 % through door knocking.

63

D.10) Importance of product display in prompting buying the product

INFERENCE: 55% of consumers say that product display at canopy/exhibition plays important role in prompting buying and 45% of consumers says that product display at canopy/exhibition does not prompt buying .

64

D.11) Contribution of free service camp in maintaining relationship with customers

INFERENCE: 54% consumers think that they will like to continue relationship with aquagaurd because it is closer to customers through free service camps, 12% consumers think that they will not like to continue relationship and 34% consumers can’t say anything.

65

D.12) Provision of information related to new technology products introduced

INFERENCE: 41% of consumers states that information related to new introduced technology products is provided during free service camps and 59% of consumers states that information related to new introduced technology products is not provided in free service camps.

66

D.13) Exchanging of product after the introduction of new products

INFERENCE:

67

62% consumers’ states that they would like to exchange their product after the introduction of new products, 2% consumers’ states that they will not like to change their product and 34% states that they can’t say anything.

D.15) Intention of buying other products of Eureka Forbes

INFERENCE: 55% of consumers states that they are intending to buy other products of Eureka Forbes and 15% of consumers states that they are not intending to buy other products of Eureka Forbes.While 30% of them are not sure .

68

Summary of the findings •

From the analysis done on the basis of the survey conducted it was inferred that perceived quality showed the highest brand equity rating and brand loyalty showed the least brand equity rating .

•

After sales service offered by the company is an important consideration for the customer.

•

For the same brand, the RO products are perceived to be superior in quality and technology as compared to UV products.

• ISI certification is an important consideration while buying whereas the customer is less sensitive towards IMA endorsement.

•

The consumer awareness of the actual difference between RO and UV technology is quite low.

• Water testing prior to buying the product is an important consideration for the customer.

69

•

Special attractive offers do not matter much to the customers at the time of buying.

•

Customers would’nt mind exchanging their products with the newly introduced products or models

• Electricity consumption efficiency of the product is an important consideration for the customer.

• Rs 300-800 is considered an appropriate maintenance cost per annum for the water purifier.

.

70

SUGGESTIONS FOR BELOW THE LINE ACTIVITIES: 1) Contact builders before the completion of project so that contracts can be made in advance regarding the installation of water purifier in the society. 2) In free service camps , customers should be informed about the new and better technology being offered by the company in the products of other product lines as well. 3) The UV water purifier and RO water purifier should be targeted in different areas according to the T.D.S. of water. 4) IMA endorsement and ISI certification (product strength) should be highlighted. 5) Emails should be sent to the existing customers asking for referrals. If the sales materialize give them free service. 6) Distribute discount coupons and free service coupons through newspaper. 7) Install water purifier at Temples, mosque etc. That will help in creating a good brand image. 8) Send mails to existing customers about the new products or special offers. 9) Present customers who are intending to buy products of some other product line of the company be given an extended free service for the current product. 10) Free trial of newly launched products be provided during free service camps.

71

CONCLUSION: Among all brand associations Perceived quality helps drive financial performance. A customer might be overly influenced by the previous image of the bad quality of the product. Thus it is critical to protect the brand from gaining a shoddy image. After sales service form an integral part of perceived quality and could be a serious cause of dissatisfaction for the customer if not properly looked into. In today’s fast moving world customers don’t stick to the product for life. Advertisements and increased options make them switch the brand as soon as they feel the need. Water-purifying companies are using direct selling techniques but of late other methods are also evolving. There is now increased brand awareness among customers and companies should look beyond door to door selling and explore new methods of promotion. Media potential needs to be tapped properly as this is the medium the customer is most exposed to. Moreover there are many different issues that hinder the sales of water purifier like maintaining the uninterrupted electric supply and cost of maintenance. Furthermore the company needs to maintain long lasting relationship with its

72

customers which is possible through proper addressal of the problems of the customers related to product. . Highly committed customers should not be taken for granted. Brand loyalty can be increased by attaining a clear and effective brand identity. A firm should avoid diverting resources from the loyal core towards the non customers and price switchers. The company should not forget the customers once its product has been bought by him.

 Bibliography 

Marketing Management by Kotler



CM Kothari (statistics)



CM Choudhary (research methodology)

 Webliography 

www.google.com



www.eurekaforbes.com

73

Questionnaire Basic details: Name:

____________________________________

Address:

__________________________________

No. of family members: ___________________________ Do you currently own a water purifier of Eureka Forbes? (A) yes (B) no Please mention the name of the model _________________  Key to rank the attributes: Strongly disagree Disagree

1 2

74

Can’t say Agree Strongly agree

3 4 5

Brand Loyalty: 1) I intend to update my water purifier that I currently have with the same product the next timea) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5 2) Your water purifier has provided you satisfaction during the use(a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

3) I would definitely recommend the same water purifier that I have to others as wella) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5 4) I am willing to pay a higher price to buy this water purifier instead of other available in the marketa) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

Brand Image: 5) My water purifier has delivered on its assurance of providing clean and safe drinking water-

75

a) 1

b) 2

c) 3

d) 4

e) 5

6) My water purifier has given me good value for moneya) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5 7) My water purifier scores high in trustworthiness/ reliabilitya) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5 8) I own a well established brand as compared to other brandsa) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

Perceived Quality: 9) I do relate quality to my present water purifiera) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5 10) The after sales service being provided has been upto my expectationa) 1

b)2

c)3

d)4

e)5

11) I believe that this is the best choice that I have made out of the available lot in the marketa) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5 12) The water purifier I own is innovative in technology used for water purificationa) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

Part 2

76

13) Are you aware of the difference between the RO technology and UV technology used for water purification? a) Yes

b) no

If yes, kindly mention_______________________ 14)Did you consider special attractive offers at the time of purchase of the water purifier? a) Yes b) no 15) How important as a criteria the ISI certification for any water purifier is? a) Extremely important b) important c) Not important at all d) not sure 16) How important as a criteria the IMA (Indian Medical Association) endorsement for any water purifier is? a) Extremely important b) important c) Not important d) not sure 17) Do you think water testing is important before buying any water purifier? a) Yes b) no 18) How important do you think is the requirement of a proper after sales service for a product like water purifier? a)extremely important c)can’t say

b)important d)not important

77

19) What do you think is the appropriate maintenance cost of a water purifier to afford per annum? a) Rs.0-300 c) Rs.800-1500 e) Rs. 2000-3000

b) Rs.300-800 d) Rs.1500-2000

20) How important is the “electricity consumption efficiency” of any water purifier in buying it ? a) Extremely important c) Not important

b) important d) not sure

Q21) How did you first come across a product by EUREKA FORBESa) Reference b) Newspaper/TV c) Product display at canopy/Exhibition/Apartment Activity d) Door knocking e) other sources Q22) Has Product display at Canopy/Exhibition prompted you to buy the product? a) Yes b) No Q23) Will you continue your relationship with Aqua guard keeping in view the free service camps being organized for you? a) Yes b) no c) can’t say Q24) Is information related to new technology products provided to you in free service camps? a) Yes b) No

78

Q25) Would you consider exchanging your product with a new introduced product ? a) Yes b) No c) can’t say Q26) Are you intending to buy different category product offered by Eureka Forbes e.g. Vacuum cleaners / security system / Air purifiers? a) Yes b) No

79