L'OREAL PARIS Brand awareness and brand perception
Marketing project on eureka forbes
1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
4
5. direction and purpose she gave to this project through her invaluable insights,
which constantly inspired me to think beyond the obvious.
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
5
6. • Analysis of the BTL activities
Chapter 4
• Summary of the findings
• 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
6
7. 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
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
8. 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
8
9. 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 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.
9
10. 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
(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
11. 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
11
12. 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 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 .
12
13. 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.
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
13
14. 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
(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.
14
15. (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.
• 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.
15
16. (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).
16
17. 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.
17
18. 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
19. 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
19
20. 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.
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
20
21. 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 compact
Special usages
Aquaguard booster
Aquaguard hi-flo
Aquaguard total NF
Aquaguard ultra
21
22. Aquaguard total RO
Total protection
Aquaguard Gold Nova
Aquaguard Total Sensa
RO Based purifiers
Aquaguard Reviva
Cronbac
h’s alpha N
.711 12
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
22
23. *Cronbach’s Alpha of .711 signifies adequate amount of reliability
of scale.
Analysis for the Perceived quality attributes:
c.1) Respondents’ perception of Aqua guard as a quality
product according to the-
• Model they use
23
24. Bar Chart
30 model
RO
UV
20
Count
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
26. c.3) Respondents’ view about the after sales service being
upto the expectation on the basis of:
• Model used
Bar Chart
30 model
RO
UV
20
Count
28
23
10
11
9
8
6 6
4
3
2
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
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
27. service
60
50
40
Frequency
30
51
20
10 20
14
9
6
0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
service
Strongly Disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly
disagree agree
14% 20% 9% 51% 6%
c.5) Respondents’ perception of Aquaguard as their best
choice on the basis of:
27
28. • Model used
Bar Chart
25 model
RO
UV
20
15
Count
21
10 20
15
11
5 9 9
5
4 4
2
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
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
30. c.7) Respondents’perception of Aquaguard as a
technologically innovative product on the basis of -
the Model used
Bar Chart
25 model
RO
UV
20
15
Count
25
10
17
16
5 10
9 9 9
3
2
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
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
30
32. Analysis of the brand image attributes
b.5)Respondents’perception of Aquaguard as a trustworthy
and reliable brand
• on the basis of model used:
Bar Chart
30 model
RO
UV
20
Count
27
23
10
9 9
8
7
6
5
3 3
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
trust
32
33. 65.4% of the UV customers and nearly 68 % of the RO customers more or
less agree to Aquaguard being a trustworthy brand
(b.6)overall analysis
trust
50
40
30
Frequency
49
20
10
16 16
12
7
0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
trust
Strongly disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly
disagree agree
7% 16% 12% 49% 16%
33
34. b.7)Respondents’perception of Aquaguard as a well
established brand as compared to others
• on the basis of the model used:
Bar Chart
30 model
RO
UV
20
Count
28
10 20
11
10
8
7 7
5
3
1
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
established
34
35. 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.
b.8)overall analysis:
established
50
40
30
Frequency
48
20
21
10
15
12
4
0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
established
Strongly disagree Can’t say agree Strongly
disagree agree
35
36. 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
Bar Chart
30 model
RO
UV
20
Count
29
22
10
8
7 7 7
6 6
5
3
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
promise
Nearly 64% of the RO customers and nearly 65% of the UV customers
36
37. moreor less agree that aquaguard has provided them safe and clean drinking
water.
b.2)overall analysis
promise
60
50
40
Frequency
30
51
20
10
13 14
11 11
0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
promise
37
38. Strongly disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly
disagree agree
11% 13% 11% 51% 14%
b.3)Respondents perception of Aquaguard as a value for
money product
• On the basis of model used
38
39. Bar Chart
30 model
RO
UV
20
Count
27
22
10
9 9
7
6 6
5 5
4
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
vfm
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:
39
40. vfm
50
40
30
Frequency
49
20
10
15 16
11
9
0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
vfm
Strongly disagree Can’t say Agree Strongly
disagree agree
9% 15% 11% 49% 16%
Analysis of the brand loyalty attributes
40
41. (a.1) Respondents’ willingness to update their water
purifier with same brand next time
• on the basis of model used
Bar Chart
30 model
RO
UV
20
Count
29
23
10
10
7 7 7
5
4 4 4
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
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.
41
43. (a.3) Respondents’ willingness to recommend the brand
to others
• model used
Bar Chart
40 model
RO
UV
30
Count
20
31
21
10
10
6 6 7
5 5 4 5
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
recommend
62.2% of the RO customers and nearly 65.45% of the UV customers more or
less agreeto recommending the brand to others.
43
45. (a.5)Respondents’ view on being satisfied during use of the
product:
• on the basis of model used
Bar Chart
40 model
RO
UV
30
Count
20
31
27
10
12
6 7
4 4 3 4
2
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
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
45
47. (a.7)Respondents’ willingness to pay a higher price for the
brand as compared to others.
• on the basis of model used:
Bar Chart
30 model
RO
UV
20
Count
26
10 20
10
7 7 7 7
6
5 5
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
premium
47
48. 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
(a.8)overall analysis:
premium
50
40
30
Frequency
45
20
10 18
14 13
10
0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
premium
Strongly disagree Can’t say agree Strongly
disagree agree
10% 18% 14% 45% 13%
48
49. 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 Mean Rank
Updation 5.85
Recommend 6.14
Satisfaction 6.06
Premium 5.15
Promise 6.57
Value for money 6.55
Trustworthy 6.73
Established 6.89
Quality 7.51
Service 5.67
Choice 7.29
Technology 7.02
Test Statistics(a)
N 100
Chi-Square 42.367
Df 11
49
50. Asymp. Sig. .000
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
50
51. 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
Table 1.2
51
52. Perceived quality
Quality 7.51
Service 5.67
Choice 7.29
Innovative 7.02
Overall mean rank for 6.79
perceived quality
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
52
53. H0: ROqt═ UVqt
H1: ROqt≠ UVqt
Ranks
model N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Quality RO 45 56.23 2530.50
UV 55 45.81 2519.50
Total 100
Technology RO 45 56.59 2546.50
UV 55 45.52 2503.50
Total 100
Test Statistics(a)
53
54. 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.
quality Technology
Mann-Whitney U 979.500 963.500
Wilcoxon W 2519.500 2503.500
Z -2.021 -2.000
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .043 .045
54
55. Part 2
ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
D.1) Awareness of the difference between the RO technology
and UV technology
55
56. 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.
56
57. 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.
57
58. 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.
58
59. 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
59
60. 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.
60
61. 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
61
62. 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.
62
63. 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.
63
64. 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.
64
65. 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 .
65
66. 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.
66
67. 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.
67
68. D.13) Exchanging of product after the introduction of new
products
INFERENCE:
68
69. 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 .
69
70. 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.
70
71. • 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
• 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.
.
71
72. 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.
72
73. 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.
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
73
74. 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.
Bibliography
Marketing Management by Kotler
CM Kothari (statistics)
CM Choudhary (research methodology)
Webliography
www.google.com
74
75. www.eurekaforbes.com
Questionnaire
Basic details:
Name: ____________________________________
Address: __________________________________
No. of family members: ___________________________
Do you currently own a water purifier of Eureka Forbes?
(A) yes
(B) no
75
76. Please mention the name of the model _________________
Key to rank the attributes:
Strongly disagree 1
Disagree 2
Can’t say 3
Agree 4
Strongly agree 5
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
76
77. 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-
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
77
78. 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_______________________
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
78
79. 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.300-800
c) Rs.800-1500 d) Rs.1500-2000
e) Rs. 2000-3000
20) How important is the “electricity consumption efficiency” of any
water purifier in buying it ?
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
79
80. 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
80
81. 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
80
