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), FMS-

IRM 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.

Neha Tomar

4

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 Conclusion Suggestions for BTL activities

Chapter 5 Bibliography Webliography

Chapter 6Appendix

5

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 othersFiga.5)model based division of consumer responses on being satisfied with product during useFiga.6)overall view of consumer responses on being satisfied with product during useFiga.7) model based division of consumer responses on willingness to pay a higher price for a product of the same brandFiga.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 waterFigb.2)overall view of consumer responses on being provided safe and clean drinking waterFigb.3)model based division of consumer responses on aquaguard being a good value for money productFigb.4)overall view of consumer responses on aquaguard being a good value for money productFigb.5) model based division of consumer responses on the reliability of aquaguard brandFigb.6)overall view of consumer responses on the reliability of aquaguard brandFigb.7)model based division of consumer responses on Aquaguard being an established brandFig b.8)overall view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being an established brandFigc.1)model based division of consumer responses on Aquaguard being a quality productFigc.2)overall view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being a quality productFigc.3)model based division of consumer responses on being satisfied with after sales service of the productFigc.4)overall view of consumer responses on being satisfied with after sales service of the productFigc.5)model based division of consumer responses on aquaguard being the best choiceFigc.6)overall view of consumer responses on aquaguard being the best choiceFigc.7)model based view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being innovative in technologyFigc.8)overall view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being innovative in technologyFigD.1)awareness of difference between RO and UV technology among consumersFigD.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)

6

FigD.4)importance of IMA certification for buying water purifier(based on consumer responsesFigD.5)importance of water testing prior to buying(based on consumer responses)FigD.6)importance of after sales service in purchase decisionFigD.7)consumer expectation of appropriate maintenance cost(based on consumer responses)FigD.8)importance of product to be electricitry consumption efficient(based on consumer responsesFigD.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 campsFigD12)consumer response on whether information is provided during free service campsFigD.13)consumer intention to exchange old products with new onesFigD.14)intention to buy other products of eureka forbesTable 1) mean ranks of all the attributes of brand equiy constructs and chi sqare statisticTable1.1)average maen rank or brand equity rating of brand loyalty and brand imageTable1.2)average mean rank or brand eqity rating of perceived qualityTable 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,

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

8

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 are-

1. 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

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

9

(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.

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

10

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 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

11

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

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.

12

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.

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

13

(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

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.

14

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

(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).

15

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

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.

16

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."

17

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

18

years, the retail business assumed greater significance and by 1999, around 5% of

the company's sales came from the 2500-strong dealer network.

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

19

multiple avenues of interaction and present a single face to the customer - any

customer is everyone's customer under this process of 'Convergence'.

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 compactSpecial usages

Aquaguard booster Aquaguard hi-flo Aquaguard total NF Aquaguard ultra Aquaguard total ROTotal protection

Aquaguard Gold Nova Aquaguard Total SensaRO Based purifiers

20

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 design of the study as to what should be measured and what should not be measured.Cronbach’s alpha analysis was used for this purpose.

Reliability Statistics

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

Cronbach’s alpha N

.711 12

21

Analysis for the Perceived quality attributes :

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

22

qualitystrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagree

Cou

nt

30

20

10

0

10

26

6

1312

19

9

5

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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 :

23

qualitystrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagree

Freq

uenc

y

50

40

30

20

10

0

22

47

13

18

quality

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly

agree

0% 18% 13% 47% 22%

24

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

service

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Cou

nt

30

20

10

0

4

28

6

98

2

23

3

11

6

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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:

25

servicestrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

6

51

9

20

14

service

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly

agree

14% 20% 9% 51% 6%

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

26

Model used

choice

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Cou

nt

25

20

15

10

5

0

15

20

11

45

9

21

9

4

2

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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:

27

choicestrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

50

40

30

20

10

0

24

41

20

87

choice

Strongly disagree

disagree Can’t say agree Strongly agree

7% 8% 20% 41% 24%.

28

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

technology

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Count

25

20

15

10

5

0

10

25

99

2

1617

9

3

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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

29

technologystrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

50

40

30

20

10

0

26

42

18

12

2

technology

Strongly disagree

disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly agree

2% 12% 18% 42% 26%

30

Analysis of the brand image attributes

b.5)Respondents’perception of Aquaguard as a trustworthy and reliable brand on the basis of model used:

trust

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Cou

nt

30

20

10

0

9

27

79

3

8

23

56

3

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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

31

(b.6)overall analysis

truststrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

50

40

30

20

10

0

16

49

12

16

7

trust

Strongly disagree

disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly agree

7% 16% 12% 49% 16%

32

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

established

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Count

30

20

10

0

11

28

87

1

10

20

75

3

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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.

33

b.8)overall analysis:

establishedstrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

50

40

30

20

10

0

21

48

1512

4

established

Strongly disagree

disagree Can’t say agree Strongly agree

4% 12% 15% 48% 21%

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

34

promise

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Cou

nt

30

20

10

0

7

29

56

87

22

67

3

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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.

b.2)overall analysis

35

promisestrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

14

51

1113

11

promise

Strongly

disagree

disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly

agree

11% 13% 11% 51% 14%

36

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

vfm

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Cou

nt

30

20

10

0

9

27

5

9

57

22

664

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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:

37

vfmstrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

50

40

30

20

10

0

16

49

11

15

9

vfm

Strongly disagree

disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly agree

9% 15% 11% 49% 16%

Analysis of the brand loyalty attributes

38

(a.1) Respondents’ willingness to update their water purifier with same brand next time

on the basis of model used

updation

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Count

30

20

10

0

5

29

10

7

4

7

23

7

44

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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:

39

updationstrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

12

52

17

118

updation

Strongly disagree

disagree Can’t say agree Strongly agree

8% 11% 17% 52% 12%

40

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

model used

recommend

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Cou

nt

40

30

20

10

0

5

31

4

10

57

21

665

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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

41

recommendstrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

12

52

10

16

10

recommend

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Can’t say agree Strongly

agree

10% 16% 10% 52% 12%

42

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

satisfaction

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Cou

nt

40

30

20

10

0

4

31

4

12

4 3

27

76

2

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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

43

satisfactionstrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

7

58

11

18

6

satisfaction

Strongly

disagree

disagree Can’t say agree Strongly

agree

6% 18% 11% 58% 7%

44

(a.7)Respondents’ willingness to pay a higher price for the

brand as compared to others.

on the basis of model used:

premium

strongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Count

30

20

10

0

7

26

7

10

56

20

775

Bar Chart

UVRO

model

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

45

(a.8)overall analysis:

premiumstrongly agreeagreecan't saydisagreestrongly disagree

Freq

uenc

y

50

40

30

20

10

0

13

45

14

18

10

premium

Strongly

disagree

disagree Can’t say agree Strongly

agree

10% 18% 14% 45% 13%

Brand equity rating analysis

46

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 Mean RankUpdation 5.85Recommend 6.14Satisfaction 6.06Premium 5.15Promise 6.57Value for money 6.55Trustworthy 6.73Established 6.89Quality 7.51Service 5.67Choice 7.29Technology 7.02

Test Statistics(a)

N 100Chi-Square 42.367Df 11Asymp. Sig. .000

47

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

Table 1.2

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

48

Perceived quality

Quality 7.51

Service 5.67

Choice 7.29

Innovative 7.02

Overall mean rank for perceived quality

6.79

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

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

49

H1: ROqt≠ UVqt

Ranks

Test Statistics(a)

Grouping Variable: model

The p values of .043 and .045 are less than the alpha 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.

model N Mean Rank Sum of RanksQuality RO 45 56.23 2530.50

UV 55 45.81 2519.50Total 100

Technology RO 45 56.59 2546.50UV 55 45.52 2503.50Total 100

quality TechnologyMann-Whitney U 979.500 963.500

Wilcoxon W 2519.500 2503.500

Z -2.021 -2.000

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .043 .045

50

Part 2

ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

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

51

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.

52

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.

53

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.

54

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

55

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.

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

purchase decision

56

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

D.7) Appropriate maintenance cost for water purifier

57

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.

58

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.

59

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.

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

60

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 .

61

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.

62

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.

63

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

INFERENCE: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.

64

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 .

Summary of the findings

65

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.

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

66

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.

.

SUGGESTIONS FOR BELOW THE LINE ACTIVITIES:

67

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.

68

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

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.

69

Bibliography

Marketing Management by Kotler

CM Kothari (statistics)

CM Choudhary (research methodology)

Webliography

www.google.com

www.eurekaforbes.com

70

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 1Disagree 2Can’t say 3Agree 4Strongly agree 5

71

Brand Loyalty:

1) I intend to update my water purifier that I currently have with the same product the next time-a) 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 well-a) 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 market-a) 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-a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

6) My water purifier has given me good value for money-a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

7) My water purifier scores high in trustworthiness/ reliability-

72

a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

8) I own a well established brand as compared to other brands-a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

Perceived Quality:

9) I do relate quality to my present water purifier- a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

10) The after sales service being provided has been upto my expectation-

a) 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 market-a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

12) The water purifier I own is innovative in technology used for water purification-a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

Part 2

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_______________________

73

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 b)important c)can’t say d)not important 19) What do you think is the appropriate maintenance cost of a water purifier to afford per annum?

a) Rs.0-300 b) Rs.300-800c) Rs.800-1500 d) Rs.1500-2000e) Rs. 2000-3000 20) How important is the “electricity consumption efficiency” of any water purifier in buying it ?

74

a) Extremely important b) important c) Not important d) not sure

Q21) How did you first come across a product by EUREKA FORBES-a) 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

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

75

76