ipl case c&d

8/13/2019 IPL CASE C&D

1/33

Indian Products

Limited (C&D)

Submitted to:

Prof. Bhalendar Nayyar

By Group 9:

Aayushi Singh (221002)

Anvesh Reddy(221032) Akul Sharma(221015)

Dev Sharma(221040)

Divya Sharma (221043)


2/33

Cooking Medium Market ::

Background

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

Refined oils accounted for 2% of the total cooking medium tonnage or 3% of thetotal cooking oil tonnage, i.e., 1 lakh tons

SPRO’s had a market share of only 0.3-0.5% of the total cooking medium tonnage

Bulk packs commanded major portion

SPRO market - either stagnant or declining

Increase in non groundnut oil brands


3/33

BACKGROUND

12%

16%

72%

Market Share (%)

Ghee and Butter

Vanaspati

Oils


4/33

IPL Market Research

Objectives

Assess whether therewas an opportunityfor new brand in the

SPRO market

If yes, determine thebest product conceptin terms of consumerappeal / acceptance


5/33

• To launch a non- groundnut oil in the SPRO market.

• Considered Options :Corn oil and Sunflower oil.

• The research conducted in three phases :

Phase 1 : Determining Attributes for Product Concepts

Phase 2 : Generate Concept Statements

Phase 3 : Administer Questionnaire


6/33

Attributes Identified :

Corn Oil

• Colour

• Taste/Flavour

•Energy & Nutrition• General Fitness

Sunflower Oil

• Easy Digestibility

• Energy & Nutrition

•General Fitness• Economy in Use


7/33

The Product Concepts• P1- For general fitness and

easy digestibility, eat foodcooked in refined Sunfloweroil. With high poly unsaturatedfatty acids, it keeps your familyhealthy and active all through

the day.

• P2- And now! Fry twice thenumber of puris in lesseramount of oil. Brand ‘X’ of

refined sunflower oil cooksmore food in less oil. Andfastly too! Save money. Use thisoil.

SUNFLOWERREFINED OIL

• P3- Corn is high in proteins.

Use rich golden colourrefined corn oil for energyand nutrition.

• P4- We all like food that is

tasty and keeps the familyhealthy and fit. Refined cornoil, popular all over theworld, provides fitness andtaste—Just like ‘makai ki

roti’ !

CORNREFINED OIL


8/33

Information Collected

• Current and past usership of cooking

medium and different brands

• Reasons for use & extent of brand loyalty

• Ranking of attributes

• Ratings of overall assessment

• Uniqueness, believability & buying intention• Classification data of respondent


9/33

Methodology

• Scaling method-

Ranking- Done on attributes;

on product concepts on the basis of 4 variables

-Rank Order in Comparative-Continuous Rating Scale in Non Comparative

Ordinal : To Measure product attributes

Interval : For Overall evaluation of product concepts

• Measures of Central Tendency -Mean, median, mode – used for ranking

• Regression Analysis- Bivariate and multivariate


10/33

Reason for using the current brand

Use of multiple cooking medium

Use of multiple SPRO brands

Brand loyalty status


11/33

Reasons for Using the Current Brand


12/33

Analysis

• 64% of the respondents made choice other than “Force of Habit”.

– 12% responded that they had no choice.

– 48% responded that the brand they were using wasthe best among the available brands.

– Only 4% of the respondents were satisfied with thecurrent brand they were using.

• Possibility of launching a new brand to satisfyremaining 60% respondents – A large market potential


13/33

um er o oo ng e umsUsed

It can thus be inferred that introducing

another cooking medium would not be difficult

in the kitchens of SPRO Consumers

30%

78%

100% 100%

Four or more Three or more Two or more One or more


14/33

Number of Refined Oil Brands

Used

74% of current SPRO users would not mind using anotherbrand while 32% would readily welcome another brand.

The new brand would not face difficulties from larger

proportion of SPRO users.

4%

32%

74%

100%

Four or more Three or more Two or more One or more


15/33

Brand Loyalty Status

70% were found to have a low loyalty which favored anew brand.

This provided enough confidence about good

prospects for a new brand.


16/33

Rank of each of the 8 attributes/benefitsin buying refined oil

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


17/33

On the Basis of Rank

• The respondents were asked to rank the following 8 attributes and

their median ranks were calculated.

Taste

Health

Nutrition

Digestibility

Purity

Color

Odour

Keepability of Goods


18/33

Attribute Importance


19/33

• 50% of the respondents gave rank 1, 2 or 3 to

taste.

• 60% of the respondents gave rank 1 or 2 to Health.

• 56% of the respondents gave rank 1 or 2 to purity.

o On the basis of the ranks - two attributes which are

important are health, purity and taste with amedian rank of 2, 2 and 3 respectively

oMedian Rank equal to or above 4 not considered


20/33

On The Basis Of Ratings

Multiple Regression Analysis• Overall Rating - Dependent Variable• Ratings on Eight Attributes - Independent Variables.

• Those attributes with a very low regression coefficient

were not considered as important.• According to this analysis, the attributes which were

considered important were : Taste, Health, Odour and

Purity.

Y(Overall rating) = 0.02325 + 0.231(Taste) + 0.280(Health) +0.185 (Odor) + 0.112(Purity) + 0.08(Digestion) + 0.078

(Color) + 0.028 (Keepability) + .010(Nutrition)


21/33

On The Basis Of Ratings

H0 : The given factors have no impact on the overall rating

H1 : The given factors have impact on the overall rating

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE : 5% , Tcri 1.96

Variable Regression

Coefficient

Standard Error T – Value

Taste 0.23148 0.04970 4.658

Health 0.28034 0.06252 4.484

Odour 0.18512 0.06211 2.980

Purity 0.11230 0.05381 2.087

Digestion 0.08019 0.05123 1.565Colour 0.07846 0.05597 1.402

Keep Ability 0.02801 0.05319 0.527

Nutrition 0.01001 0.06084 0.164


22/33

Important Attributes

Health, Taste and Purity wereassessed as important attributes.

Odour - assessed as an important

attribute through Ratings approach

whereas it was not considered importantaccording to the Rankings approach.


23/33

The overall evaluation of customer

acceptance of the four product concepts

involves four measures :

Overall Rating

Buying Intention

Uniqueness

Believability


24/33

Analysis for selecting appropriate

Product Concept :

1

• Understand the Relationshipbetween the four overall measures

2• Ranking of Product Concepts

3• Selecting the Best Concept


25/33

Variables were measured on interval scale which enabled theresearchers to obtain correlation between them

High positive correlation between overall rating and buying intention

meant that if overall rating was high then buying intention would also

be high but buying intention was not affected much by uniquenessand believability

Uniqueness and believability had high negative correlation that is

more the uniqueness in the product, less will be its believability

Hence , Buying Intention was a dependent variable and

Uniqueness, Believability And Overall Rating were independent

variables

Relationship Between 4

Variables


26/33

Ranking Product

Concepts

OVERALL RATING BUYING

INTENTION BELIEVABILITY UNIQUENESS

P4 3.69 3.34 3.5 3.16 P1 3.47 3.28 3.48 2.28

P3 3.18 3.13 3.62 3.2 P2 3.02 2.98 3.08 3.02

Ranking of product concepts was done on the basis of measure of centraltendency (mean) and then differences in mean calculated for 2 favorable product

concepts P1 and P4

Product concepts (P1, P2, P3, P4) were ranked as per their mean score


27/33

I. P2 was ranked lowest on overall rating, buying intention,

believability and 2nd lowest on uniqueness. P2 was

dropped.

II. P3 lowest on overall rating and buying intention, but

ranked top on believability and uniqueness. Dropped as

low on important attributes.

III. P4 was ranked 1st in overall rating and buying intention;

2nd in believability and uniqueness. It was thus

considered to be favorable for further consideration.

IV. P1 close to P4 on all attributes except uniqueness. Taken

up for further consideration.

Selecting the Best

Product Concept

A i C titi P iti


28/33

Assessing Competitive Position

of Product Concepts

• Usage of two techniques:

– Mean Rating Approach

– MDS(Multi Dimensional S Calling) Approach


29/33

Mean Rating Approach

• Mean ratings of 2existing brands and 4

product concepts on 8attributes and overallbasis

• 23 respondents

• P4’s overall rating

same as Postman andP1’s overall ratingsame as Saffola

MDS Approach

• Same data processed

• 2 dimensional map

obtained


30/33

Identification of Axis

P t l M f


31/33

High Taste & General

Purpose

Low Taste & Special

Purpose

Therapeutic/Medicinal General Health/Nutritious

Saffola

Postman

P1

P2

P4

P3

Perceptual Map of

Existing Brands and New Product

Concepts


32/33

• Concept P1 is perceived as a product that ismore towards serving special purpose and

low taste

• Concept P2 is perceived as a morenutritious product

• Concepts P3 & P4 are perceived as products

having nutritional value and moderatelytastier than other products

Perceptual map indicating concept

factors based on benefits

indicates:


33/33

• It is recommended to introduce a new brand ofSPRO

• Concepts P1 and P4 offer maximum promise

• For P1, demand assessment exercise suggested, Iffound sufficient inspite of Saffola’s presence, go

ahead with the concept

• For P4, stronger taste rationale, to compete with

Postman effectively

• Product test using Corn Oil suggested

Recommendations

ipl case c&d

Documents