Showing posts with label Marketing Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marketing Management. Show all posts

Tuesday, 20 August 2013

Indian Refrigerator Market

India's Refrigerator market estimated at Rs. 2750 Cr. is catered mainly by 10 brands. The annual capacity is estimated at around 4.15 million units is running head of demand of 1.5 millions.

As there is a demand and a surplus supply, all the manufacturers are trying out for new strategies in the market.

Times have changed and also the buying behaviour of the customer. Earlier it was cash and carry system. Now dealers play an important role in selling; now the systems is exchange for old “bring your old refrigerator and take a new one with many gifts”.

A new company by name Electrolux has entered the market which has acquired Allwyn, Kelvinator and Voltas brand. Researchers have revealed that urban and city sales are declining and hence all manufacturers are trying to concentrate on rural markets. Electrolux strategy is customisation of market, with special attention to the Northern and Southern India markets, while Godrej the main player thinks that dealer network in rural market for sales and service will be beneficial and is trying to give more emphasis on dealer network, whereas Whirlpool has adopted the strategy of increasing the dealer network by 30%.

The market shares of the major players are as follows:

• Godrej                         30%
• Videocon                     13%
• Kelvinator                    12%
• Allwyn                         10%
• Voltas                          5%
• Whirlpool                    27%
• Daewoo                      1%
• L.G                             1%
• Others                         1%

Questions

1. Could the refrigerator market be segmented on geographical base planned by Electrolux?
2. What would be the marketing mix for rural market?
3. Would 125 L and 150 L models be an ideal choice to launch in rural market?

Possible Solutions

Answer 1. The main justification for Electrolux strategy would be Electrolux is amalgamation of 3 companies, Kelvinator, Voltas and Allwyn. Allwyn is popular in South Indian market, while Kelvinator is famous in North India Market. Electrolux wants to cash in on the popularity of the respective brands.
It is not possible to segment according to North or South Indian Market, once a company's name becomes a logo, then the reason for buying for customers for other brand depends upon price, quality, usability and features of the product. The storage pattern of foods in North India and South India is same. Same is the case of rest of India, so it won’t be possible to segregate the market according to the geographical base.

Answer 2. The rural market is small but significant as far as refrigerator is concerned. Moreover, the cost of selling of dealer in the rural market should also be justified. The type of food the rural people consume should also be taken into account; they prefer to have more of natural foods and less of derived food products like Ice-creams, butter, cheese etc. The cost of the refrigerator should be less attractive to buy. The size and material should be so adjusted that the cost price would be reasonable. The capacity of the refrigerator should be 100 l - 300 l. Much more space has to be given for storing vegetables. Other important factor to be taken into consideration is the Power supply which is not so good in rural areas. To avoid the voltage fluctuations in built stabilisers will be the selling features in the rural areas.

Answer 3. The chances of selling of 125 l and 150 l refrigerators are high because the prices of the refrigerators would be less. This would be a major factor. The second aspect would be they don’t have many items to store. They would prefer a small refrigerator, also the space in their homes are not very big wherein a small refrigerator would serve their needs.

Marketing and Distribution of Mushroom

Sachin and Virag are two enterprising youth. They have passed out from IIM, Bangalore. They thought instead of doing a job, they will launch fresh vegetables in Indian markets. Having learnt of the future conventional foods, they decided to venture into cultivation of mushrooms. Mushrooms are known to be the best alternative food for vegetarians. For Sachin and Virag fund raising was a serious handicap for mass production. However, the first trial batch of mushrooms that they produced was bought by Star Hotel in Bangalore. Further, the hotel placed orders for supply of 20 kgs every day. Now mushroom industry is run by small entrepreneurs, like Sachin and Virag. Another big player M/s Ashtavinayak Mushrooms, equipped with cold storage facility was more interested in the export market. Sachin and Virag have set their sights high. They aim to sell mushrooms in a very big way all over India. Mushrooms have a great market potential and is a perishable food.

Questions
A. How will you advise Sachin and Virag, as how to increase the consumer
awareness about this new food?
B. What would be your suggestions for distribution channel for mushrooms?

Possible Solutions
Answer A
  • Consumer awareness can be created by test marketing. Through sales persons and customer response to the product.
  • Samples can be distributed in big malls and Variety stores.
  • Awareness can also be created through outdoor publicity such as wall hoardings, banners, insertions in news papers etc.
  • Household sector
  • Restaurants
  • Industrial canteens
  • Brand name of the company along with the product can also be highlighted to the customer by using the concept of event marketing. For different kinds of selling modes they can target different customers Institutional sale: Hotel / Restaurants/Industrial canteens Individual sale: Household
  • Approach to hotel industry can be made and product benefit can be shown to convince the customer. Mushroom related recipe booklet can be given to them for use. Can approach the T.V programs for Khana Khazana to show different recipes of Mushrooms in their shows.
  • Dealer push through sales promotion campaign. Press meetings can be a way to consumer awareness. Editors, journalists of newspapers having maximum circulation can be contacted and samples to be distributed to them (such as 250 gm or 100 gm packs).
  • Packaging should be attractive.
Answer B:

Distribution network:
  • Product having being perishable, company should go for faster and effective distribution network having cold storage facility.
  • Distribution through company delivery vans in local market and distribution through rail or road transport to urban markets.

Saturday, 3 August 2013

COCA-COLA

On April 23, 1985, Coca-Cola, the largest aerated beverage manufacturer of the world, launched a sweeter version of the soft drink named 'New Coke,' withdrawing its traditional 99 years old formula. New Coke was launched with a lot of fanfare and was widely publicized through the television and newspapers. Coca-Cola's decision to change Coke's formulation was one of the most significant developments in the soft drink industry during that time. Though the initial market response to New Coke was satisfactory, things soon went against Coca-Cola. Most people who liked the original Coke criticized Coca-Cola's decision to change its formula. They had realized that the taste of New Coke was similar to that of Pepsi, Coca- Cola's closest competitor, and was too poor when compared to the taste of the original Coke. Analysts felt that Coca-Cola had failed to understand the emotional attachment of consumers with Coke - the brand. They felt that Coca-Cola had lost customer goodwill by- replacing a popular product by a new one that disappointed the consumers. As a result of consumer protests to New Coke and a significant decline in its sales, Coca-Cola was forced to revert back to its original formula ten weeks later by launching 'Coke Classic' on July 11, 1985. Roger Enrico, the then CEO of Pepsi commented on the re-introduction of Old Coke in these words: "I think, by the end of their Coca-Cola nightmare, they figured out who they really are. They can't change the taste of their flagship brand. They can't change its imagery. All they can do is defend the heritage they nearly abandoned in 1985." By 1986, New Coke had a market share of less than 3%. 

BACKGROUND NOTE
Dr. John Pemberton, an Atlanta-based pharmacist, developed Coke's original formula in 1886. It was based on a combination of oils, extracts from coca leaves (cola nut) and various other additives including caffeine. These ingredients were refined to create a refreshing carbonated soda. Pemberton's bookkeeper, Frank Robinson, suggested that the product be named Coca- Cola. He also developed the lettering for the brand name in a distinctive flowing script. On May 8, 1886, Coke was released in the market. It was first sold by Joe Jacobs Drug Store in the U.S. The first advertisement of Coke appeared in "The Atlanta Journal' dated May 29, 1886. Pemberton took the help of several investors and spent $76.96 on advertising. Initially, he could sell only 50 gallons of syrup at $1 per gallon. To make the drink popular, it was served free for several days - only after this that the drink gained people's acceptance. After Pemberton's death in 1888, Asa Candler, his friend and a wholesaler druggist, acquired a stake in the company. Coca-Cola's sales soared even without much advertising and as many as 61,000 servings (8 ounces) were Sold in 1889. This made Candler realize that the business was profitable. He decided to wind up his drug business and be associated with Coca-Cola full time. As the business expanded. Candler also invested a higher sum in advertising the drink. By 1891, Candler bought the company for $2.300. In 1892, he renamed it as Coca-Cola and a year later. Coca-cola was registered as a trademark. Only Candler and his associate Robinson knew the original formula. It was then passed on by word of mouth and became the most closely guarded secret in theAmerica  industry. Though occasional rumors spread that cocaine was an ingredient of Coke’s formula, authorities mentioned that this was not true.
By 1895, Coke was made available in all parts of the US, primarily through distributors and fountain owners. Coke was advertised as a drink, which relieved one of mental and physical exhaustion, and cured headache. Later, Candler and Robinson repositioned Coke as a refreshment drink.In the beginning of the 20th century, manufacturing firms in the US were criticized for promoting adulterated products and resorting to misleading advertisements. Coca-Cola was an easy target for such criticisms. The US government passed the Pure Food and Drugs Act in June 1906. A case was registered against Coca-Cola and the trial began in March 1911. Eventually, Coca- Cola won the case. But the decision was reversed in the Supreme Court. Finally, the case was settled outside the court in 1917 with Coca-Cola agreeing to reduce the caffeine content of the
drink by 50%.
In 1919, the company was sold to an investment group headed by Ernest Woodruff for $25million - $10 million in cash and $15 million in preferred stock. Woodruffs major decision  after taking over the company was to establish a Foreign Department to make Coke popular overseas. When Coke was released in foreign markets, several problems came up. Initially, it had to rely on local bottlers who did not promote the product with sufficient enthusiasm, or on wealthy entrepreneurs, not familiar with the beverage business. The company also faced problems regarding government regulations, trademark registration, languages and culture. By 1927, Coca-Cola's sales rose to nearly 23 million gallons. Even though Pepsi Cola emerged as its major competitor in the 1930s, Coca-Cola continued doing well. By the time the US took part in World War II, Coca-Cola was more than 50 years old and well established. In 1962, Paul Austin (Austin) became Coca-Cola's tenth president and four years later, he became the chairman and CEO of the company. By 1965, soft drink sales in the US had risen to 200 drinks per capita, and Coca-Cola's market share had risen to 41% against Pepsi's 24%. In 1964, Coca- Cola also acquired a coffee business. The company developed drinks with new flavors and also targeted food chains, which were fast gaining popularity.
In 1970, Coca-Cola faced tough competition from Pepsi. During that year, Pepsi's advertising budget exceeded Coca-Cola's. During the next few years there was a decline in Coca-Cola's market share due to Pepsi's rising sales. In 1978, Pepsi was found to have beaten Coca-Cola in supermarket sales because of its dominance in vending machines and fountain outlets. Coca-Cola's sales continued to decline during the late 1970s, as Austin began new ventures such as shrimp farming, water projects and viniculture. The political and social unrest in countries like Iran, Nicaragua and Guatemala had a severe impact on Coca-Cola's market share. The company's poor performance and the increasing discontent of its employees led to Austin's exit and the entry of Roberto Goizueta (Goizueta), a 48-year-old chemical engineer, as the company's new CEO in 1980.

THE RATIONALE
Soon after becoming CEO, Goizueta concluded that the obsession about increasing the market share was futile for Coca-Cola and in certain businesses, the return on capital employed ROCE) was actually less than the cost of capital. As a result, he sold Coca-Cola's nonperforming businesses such as wine, coffee tea industrial water treatment and aquaculture. Even after this, Goizueta's 'focus strategy' could not stop the decline in Coca-Cola's market share, which fell from 24.3% in 1980 to 21.8% in 1984 - a loss of 2.5% in four years. The decline in each percentage point amounted to a loss of about $200 million for the company. All this happened in spite of the fact that Coca-Cola's annual advertising budget in die early 1980s was higher than Pepsi's by an average of $100 million. Despite this, Coca-Cola's advertisements were not as effective as those of Pepsi were. Pepsi ads showed that even few Coke drinkers preferred Pepsi in blind taste tests. Coca-Cola's market share continued to decline though it had more vending machines, occupied more shelf space and was competitively priced against Pepsi. Coca-Cola's distribution was wider than Pepsi, which had enabled it to be the leader in the soft drinks industry. It was extremely popular because of its distinctive taste. By 1984, Coca-Cola's overall market share had dropped from 9.8% in the early 1970s to 4.9%. This became a major cause of worry for the top management of Coca-Cola. During the middle of 1983, the idea of reformulating 99-year old Coke formula struck Goizueta. The purpose was to increase Coca-Cola's market share as well as to defend its position as the market leader. A thorough market research was conducted which included interviews with about 2,00,000 consumers. This involved an expenditure of $4 million over two years. The results indicated that consumers who were very fond of Coke constituted 10-12% of the total number of soft drink consumers. When asked for their reactions to the change in Coke's taste, half of 10-12% loyal Coke consumers said that they may oppose change initially, but would eventually accept it, while the other half said that they would never accept any change. In some cases, the response was contradictory. For instance, some of the consumers, who had said that they prefer Coke to Pepsi, were found to be drinking Pepsi most of the times. Others said Coke was their favorite drink but they drank even Pepsi, or any other drink, which were available at that time. It was discovered that many people preferred Pepsi to Coke because Pepsi was sweeter. Coca-Cola felt that the sweeter taste would appeal more to teenagers and youth. Hence, it decided to launch a sweeter version of Coke, the taste of which would be similar to Pepsi. Coca-Cola also conducted a Focus group research2 that revealed that many people were willing to try New Coke. However, some believed that Coca-Cola should not alter the taste of the drink. Although both the surveys (Focus group and Survey research) indicated consumer dissatisfaction, their results were contradictory to each other. While the survey result indicated that such dissatisfaction was limited only to a small segment of the market, the focus group research observed a wider dissatisfaction. In September 1984, Coca-Cola introduced a new drink that tasted better than Pepsi and scored 6 to 8 points3 in blind taste tests. The original Coke already exceeded Pepsi's popularity by 10 points. The launch of a sweeter version of Coke was expected to make Coke popular than Pepsi by approximately 16 to 18 points. Though the market research had shown customer dissatisfaction, Coca-Cola ignored it and decided to launch New Coke based on the results of the blind taste tests.

THE LAUNCH AND ITS AFTERMATH
Coca-Cola launched New Coke in April 1985 with the punch line 'Catch the wave.' This change in Coke's formula was publicized through the television and newspapers. The company said that the introduction of New Coke conformed to its efforts to be innovative in its marketing strategies and establish good customer relationships. The announcement reached more than 80% of the American population within twenty-four hours. The launch of New Coke elicited mixed reactions from the public. The initial response to the product was encouraging with distributors reporting a fairly wide acceptance of it. According to the analysts, the reason for this was that consumers had not tasted the product yet, and were thus curious about its taste. The distributors stocked the product in large quantities due to such an encouraging consumer response. However, the consumers realized that the taste of New Coke was similar to Pepsi's and worse when compared to the taste of the original Coke. Gradually, distributors began to accept less stocks of New Coke and later on, they did not stock any due to poor consumer response to the drink. A majority of original Coke lovers criticized the company's act of changing its formula (Refer Exhibit I). Many of them stored large stocks of original Coke at home. Consumers perceived New Coke as a "me-too product'4 with a sweeter taste like Pepsi. Some said that the original Coke had a unique taste that was stronger than New Coke. Some consumers reportedly complained that the taste of New Coke was similar to sewer water, furniture polish or two dayold Pepsi. An old Coke lover said that the company had spoiled the taste of its 99 year-old soft drink and betrayed the nation's trust. Meanwhile, black marketers made a killing as they sold original Coke at an exorbitant price of $30 per six-and-a-half ounce bottle. Some of them even tried to import old Coke from abroad. By the end of May 1985, the scenario had worsened with consumer response at its lowest. After the launch of New Coke, Coca-Cola received more than a thousand calls per week from the Coke drinkers, most of whom informed the company that they were planning to substitute Coke with Pepsi since they found no difference between the two. Coca-Cola had received more than six thousand calls and around forty thousand letters from Coke loyalists from the US and abroad all complaining about New Coke after six weeks of its launch. Due to the protests from a huge number of consumers and a significant decline in the market share from 15% at the time of the launch to 1.4%, Coca-Cola was forced to revert back to its original formula ten weeks later, by launching 'Coke Classic' on 1lth July, 1985. By the end of 1985, Pepsi had more market share than the combined market shares of New Coke and Coke Classic. However, in early 1986, Coke again became more popular than Pepsi as the sales of Coke Classic picked up. By early 1986, New Coke had a market share of less than 3% which came down to 0.6% in 1987 and further down to 0.1% in the late 1980s. Coca-Cola later re-launched New Coke as 'Coke IF in 1990 (Refer to Exhibit IV) which soon phased out due to its unpopularity.

NEW COKE - WHAT WENT WRONG?
Analysts attributed the failure of New Coke due to several factors. Some felt that Coca-Cola had failed to understand the consumers' emotional attachment with Coke. Reportedly, their attachment with the brand was so strong that one of them went to the extent of wishing his bones and ashes to be preserved in Coke cans after his death. But, after the launch of New Coke, he said that he did not want to be associated with Coca-Cola anymore. Another consumer said that God and Coke were the only two important things in his life. Analysts felt that people had a high regard for Coca-Cola because of its innovative ideas, excellent products launched and the importance it accorded to people and the environment. During the 1970s, one out of every two cola drinks and one out of every three soft drinks was Coke. It was made available in more than 140 countries to 5.8 million people. These statistics proved its popularity. Also, Coca-Cola was the pioneer in recycling plastic bottles. Analysts felt that Coca-Cola was losing the goodwill of its consumers by launching a product that went against their preferences, taste and opinion. Some analysts also felt that the findings of the market research group were erroneous and late. The research was either in an inappropriate manner or was interpreted incorrectly. Coca-Cola failed to understand that there was much more to marketing soft drinks than winning taste tests. According to the analysts, the research could not have measured the type of consumer feelings that were evoked from reformulation. Market researchers also felt that Coca-Cola must have gone for focus group testing of a new product concept first and then used individual interviews to verify and quantify the results of focus groups. But, in reality, Coca-Cola carried out individual interviews first and then undertook the focus group testing. Though the company knew that 10-12% of its loyal customers would not appreciate the change in its formula, it totally misinterpreted consumers' response regarding taste. The company was totally unprepared for unseen possibilities and this caused its market share to decline rapidly after the introduction of New Coke.  

A MARKETING BLUNDER OR A PLOY?
Notwithstanding the negative consumers' response, some media reports claimed that Coca- Cola's act of launching New Coke was actually a deliberate marketing ploy to make people develop a stronger liking of original Coke after they tasted a low quality version of the drink. Coca-Cola used cane sugar and com syrup for the sweet taste of New Coke. During early 1985, Coca-Cola ran short of cane sugar stocks, but had sufficient stocks of com syrup. Cane sugar was sweeter and more expensive than com syrup. When New Coke was introduced in the market, people did not like its sweet taste. Such customer response helped Coca-Cola, and only corn syrup was used while manufacturing Coke Classic. People were so eager to see the original Coke come back that they did not notice the difference between the sweetness of cane sugar and that of corn syrup because they were very similar. Coca-Cola thus saved millions of dollars by using corn syrup rather than cane sugar in its soft drinks. Another report said that the company never believed that New Coke would be accepted by the consumers. They deliberately introduced it with an inferior taste When people got a taste which they disliked they would demand for the original taste and when the original taste was introduced they would purchase it in large quantities. This would help Coca-Cola to regain a part of its lost market share from Pepsi. Though these media reports remain unconfirmed, there was jubilation among the Coke lovers around the world after the introduction of Coke Classic Coca-Cola received between 18,000 to 30,000 calls of thanks from every corner of the world. One of them said that it was like "an old friend had returned home after a long time."

The New Coke fiasco did not result into losses for Coca-Cola. The sales of Classic Coke went up to 10 times as that of New Coke soon after its launch. Coca-Cola's stock price jumped from $61,875 to $84,500, a 35% increase. By early 1986, the stock hit an all-time high of $110 (Refer Exhibit II) in 12 years, between 1974 and 1986. At the end of the whole episode, Goizueta was happy man since it resulted in building shareholders' value. He said, "But the most significant result of 'New Coke' by far, was that it sent an incredibly powerful signal a signal that we really were ready to do whatever was necessary to build value for the owners of our business." Goizueta was rewarded with $1.7 million in salary and bonuses and almost $5 million additional bonus for the increase in stock price.
 

Questions for Discussion:


1. The launch of New Coke turned out to be a nightmare for Coca-Cola. Discuss the marketing implications of introducing New Coke. Was it necessary to re formulate New Coke?
 
2. Market researchers had expected Coca-Cola to conduct focus group testing of a new product first and then use individual interviews to verify the results of the focus groups. What other types of research methods would have been helpful to the company in providing consumer insights? Discuss.
 
3. Though some analysts felt that the launch of New Coke was a blunder, others thought it was a deliberate marketing ploy. Is the failure of New Coke really a marketing blunder? Give your opinion and substantiate it.

IMC – The Lever experience

Hindustan Lever Ltd (HLL) is one of the companies that successfully made inroads into the rural heartland of India. However, it has been a long and tedious journey for the company. The company continuously innovates to make new breakthroughs. HLL, according to an insightful media study, has used the increasing media reach and penetration to its advantage to reach places where the media has a presence. It has come out with low unit price packs of products such as premium stain removing detergent Surf Excel, beauty soap Lux, talcum powder Pond's, toothpaste Pepsodent, and skin cream Fair and Lovely. Like HLL, other companies have also developed rural-specific products or pack sizes. In 1998- 99, HLL launched a major direct consumer contact titled P.roject Bharat, which covered 2.2 crore households. Each house was given a box priced at Rs 15 which contained a low-unit price pack of shampoo, talcum powder, tooth paste, and skin cream, along with educational literature and audiovisual demonstration. According to company sources, the project has helped 'eliminate barriers to trials and protect product category and brands'. In 1998, the company launched Project Streamline to further extend its network by identifying sub stockiest in large villages, connected by motorable roads to a small town. These substockiest are expected to use various kinds of transportation like scooters, cycles, and bullockcarts to sky connected with nearby smaller villages. This strategy has paid the company richly, as it has been able to cover 46% of the rural population.

During the last five years, the company has strengthened its network through mutually beneficial alliances with rural self-help groups (SHGs). Government offices, NGOs, financial institutions, etc., are aligning together to establish SHGs to alleviate poverty through sustainable incomegenerating activities. HLL launched a project called Shakti in 2001, under which SHGs were given the option of distributing the company's products as a sustainable income-generating activity. There has been a tremendous response from the SHGs. As the women were already grouped together for micro credit operations, they saved money from their daily wages or crop sales and pitched in with HLL for what seemed to be an interesting proposition-buying HLL
products through some of their savings and then selling them to their friends and neighbours. Amway, Oriflame, and Avon have already ventured into middle-class urban India with a similar strategy with resounding success in various places. For HLL, the direct sale model was a departure from its stratified distribution channels and trained sales staff. Started with 50 SHGs in Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh, the project has already been extended to 400 groups in five districts in the state. The company is planning to start such pilot projects in other states also. The success of Shakti is yet to be gauged fully. According to industry analysts, in some villages of Andhra Pradesh, women who bought sachets of shampoo and soap  bars are struggling to sell them to make a margin, while in other villages the women have made quite a success of the venture. In 2002, HLL launched another project with largescale direct contact called Lifebuoy swasthya chetna (Lifebuoy health awareness), which was slated to cover about five crore people in 15,000
villages in ten states. The project, according to HLL, was intended at generating awareness about good health and hygiene practices and how the simple habit of washing hands with soap was essential to maintaining good health. Handled by O&M Outreach, the integrated communication used multiple contacts, which included child to child contacts, mother to child contancts, and contacting students at schools. Four 450 health development assistants were involved in I bringing the message to the target audience. They would conduct the glow-germ test to show respondents the unseen germs on their hands and how they vanished after their hands were washed with Lifebuoy. The agency involved both senior citizens and children in carrying forward the campaign: Swachch rahenge-swasth rahange (If you are clean, you will remain
healthy). At the Kumbh congregation in Allahabad in 2002, HLL executives were seen waving an ultra-violet light wand over attendees' hands to show them where germs and dirt resided. To promote Unilever's 106-year-old product Lifebuoy as a mass-market brand of soap in India, the company has used interpersonal communication to pitch in the rural heartland. Performers including magicians, singers, and dancers get on to a make. shift stage and offer a bit of local news. In one of the simulated scenes, performers take on the role of rural labourers. When one of the labourers says that he is worried that he is not well enough to work, the other retorts that when his body is covered with dirt and mud, how can he expect to breathe and feel strong? And if he is not strong, he cannot even sup. port his family. Variations of this message are rendered to the assembled audience in a catchy tune accompanied by music. In the backdrop is a banner of Lifebuoy soap.
 
According to the news story, after having produced more than 7,000 such live shows across the length and breadth of the rural heartland promoting Lifebuoy, HLL is still not sure what the best method of connecting with consumers is. Ogilvy Outreach, the rural marketing arm of advertising agency Ogilvy and Mather (O&M), which is in charge of more than 30 HLL brands, is said to have recruited local magicians, dancers, and actors to build various brands in the rural heartland of India. Fifty teams of 13 per. formers have been recruited to serve as a link between the brands and rural residents. Distribution of products in the rural areas pose peculiar problems, as referred to earlier. Only those companies that are able to strengthen this aspect of marketing can be successful. HLL, over the years, has been able to establish about 33 lakh outlets. As a strategy, the company began by opening outlets in villages adjacent to small' towns. The company's stockists in these places were made to use their infrastructure to distribute products to retailers in these villages. Until 1995, only those villages that had motorable roads were covered.

HLL's media strategy to promote its various projects
HLL, for decades, has used non-conventional media such as wall writings, cinema vans (video in wheels), weekly markets/haats, fairs, and festivals. Cinema vans have been trudging the hinterland with popular movies that are interspersed with product promise. The sales force also gives demos on the use of the product. The weekly haats allow them opportunity to address consumers spread over many tiny hamlets at one location. The occasion is utilized to interface with consumers and give them product demonstrations. This has been successfully used for detergents and soaps. The demonstrators explain to the consumers how to clean dirt and also how 'visible' clean is not necessarily hygienic. They also tell people how using soap is essential to prevent infection.

At HLL, every management trainee begins his career by spending six to eight weeks in a village, understanding the market, the people's psyche, etc. Marketing executives make frequent visits to low-income rural areas. Managers are trained on how to talk to and listen to consumers. According to HLL sources, their R&D laboratories work full time to make low-cost products for rural consumers. A constant effort to understand the behavior of the people has helped HLL to gather some interesting consumer insights, which have resulted in innovative product development.
 
One such insight gathered by the company was that rural women in some regions use the same soap for cleaning clothes and for bathing. As the chemical used in detergent bars is harsh, HLL developed a lightweight soap to double as a personal soap. In order to cut down on costs, HLL has changed the traditional process of making soap from liquid to tablet to bar to altering the machinery to cast soap immediately in the required shape, which is then packaged in a plastic cover. For yet another low-end beauty soap, Breeze, the information gathered from small towns and rural areas was that many women were using the soap both ,for their body and hair. The company experimented with the ingredients in their lab and came out with the right formula called Breeze 2-in 1. Despite some scope for the cannibalization of the company's other products, HLL feels that consumers were buying a value added product.

In some areas, the company found that women were wary of using shampoo as they felt it would be harsh on their hair. The company immediately came out with an advertising campaign that showed a straw broom (what happens to hair when washed with soap) alongside soft tresses (the benefit of shampoo). The company developed a sachet for Lux shampoo that sold at 50 paise compared to the prevailing rate of Rs 2.00 per sachet. The visual cues and the price, according to analysts, were so compelling that in the test state of Andhra Pradesh, the volume sale of shampoo jumped by 50% in three months.

A combination of consumer insights, product development, and an effective communication package has positioned HLL at the number one position in the shampoo segment in rural India. Banking on their pioneering work in the Indian rural market, both HLL and parent company Unilever are now exporting ideas and techniques to other parts of the world. The company has successfully transplanted the shampoo sachet success story to Indonesia where 63% of the population resides in rural areas. In the Philippines, which has 7,000 islands, Unilever has taken on Procter & Gamble's 'Tide' by marketing 'Surf detergent in sachets which are packed for retailers in jute bags and not in cardboard boxes. This has made the packs much more flexible and less space consuming, making it easier to transport them on bicycles. This has been very cost effective and convenient for the company. HLL's philosophy can be summed up in Mr Keki Dadiseth, the ex - HLL chief's words: 'Everybody wants brands. And there are a lot more poor people in the world than rich people. To be a global business... You have to participate in all segments'
 

Questions:
 
1. Draw up an alternative 'Lifebuoy Swasthya Chetna' contact programme using women as the change agents instead of children and old people.
2. Assuming you are a rural communication expert suggest non-conventional media, apart from the ones currently in use by HLL. While doing so, keep implementation issues/hazards in mind.

Nokia’s pricing strategy

Nokia is one brand name that inspires all those who are into the mobile culture. Of all the brand that touches our lives, Nokia stand s out significantly. It has taken mobility a step forward by creating products with continuous innovations in this industry has made it imperative that every player keeps pace with changes. Nokia has been one step ahead in anticipating future market moves and strategizing accordingly.

Interestingly the company prices its products so competitively that it not only ensures that its margins are covered but also assures revenue maximization. Let us see how Nokia leveraged it segmentation strategies, appealed to various segments with uniquely designed messages and differentiated between its products at every level to communicate and connect effectively with the intended target audience. When Nokia positions
its product to the top end segment, it does it as a classy product. To the middle segment customers it is in the form of the best alternative. To the lower end segment, the carrot is that Nokia gives real value, as a high tech product, at low affordable price. The pricing strategy of Nokia can be better understood when the juxtaposed with the skimming strategy and further interposed on Philip Kotler’s nine price/quality strategies model.

With a vast family of brand that caters to every segment, one can clearly see how Nokia, yielding to the pressure due to the competitive and innovative mobile handset market, slides each brand down the segments, one at a time by reducing its prices carefully and consistently) Here are some live examples of Nokia’s skimming pricing strategy:
 
Classic Nokia 8250
Nokia phone model 8250which was available with the vendors during the year 2000 was price at Rs. 18000. It was without modern features like camera and MMS. The telecommunications infrastructure of the country was in its initial stages and so were the service provider’s fares. Hence only the premium segment could have afforded the phone. However with the easing of the government regulations and increased competition, market dynamics changed, and during 2004, the price of the model took a nosedive and was made available for Rs. 8000-10000. Now the model has been completely phased out. Only second hand products are available. Here was one product which despite market forces maintains its price distinction and continued to carry a premium connotation to it.
 
Neo Classic Nokia 6600 This model from Nokia was made available in 2003, complete with a color screen, integrated camera and other contemporary features. In the beginning the product was prices in the range of Rs. 21000-22000. By November 2004, it was available in much lower, 15000-16000 range. The model is currently available for price of Rs. 9000-10000 only.
 
Modern Nokia 9500 communicator This is known as the snazziest model ever launched by Nokia in India. The Nokia 9500 communicator comes with office features and a large screen, coupled with increase and Bluetooth technology. Available in the market since 2005, it was initially priced at 42,000, but currently can be bought for just 26,000. All the above models were produced in quick succession and Nokia’s strategy was to deliberately allow them to eat into each other’s market share. At the same time, Nokia proliferated the market with as many models as possible by 2006, at virtually every price point. Each one of Nokia’s model played a role in catapulting Nokia to the top of the heap, in the Indian mobile handset market.

It would be apt to map Nokia’s pricing strategy on the line of the premium, high value, and super value strategy, especially on the price-quality model. On the flip side, consistent price cuts in rapid succession have the potential of smearing the brand image. But, in the buoyant telecom sector, where change is name of the game, the consumer is discerning enough to have a rational outlook towards a particular brand and its attributes, irrespective of the pricing strategy.

After all, skimming or no skimming, customer benefit is almost always guaranteed in the
price sensitive competitive market.
 

Questions

1. Discuss the segmentation strategy of Nokia and comment on its efficacy.
2. Explain how Nokia used the skimming pricing strategy for its products. Give your
comments on the strategy.
3. What would have happened if Nokia had used the penetration pricing strategy
instead of skimming?

Friday, 2 August 2013

South East Asian Economic Crisis

An economic crisis, which erupted in Thailand in mid-1997 and which soon spread to neighbouring countries—Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and South Korea — came to be popularly referred to as South-East Asian economic crisis (although South Korea is in East Asia and only the other countries are in South East Asia). Although experts do not fully agree on the reasons behind the crisis, it is generally held that the crisis was caused mainly by the following factors.
1. Persistence of large current account deficit.
2. Large foreign debt and particularly, a high proportion of short-term debt.
3. Large inflow of foreign capital, particularly the sensitive short-term capital.
4. Indiscriminate lending by banks and other financial institutions, arising from lack of adherence of financial intermediaries to prudent norms concerning capital adequacy, asset classification, provisioning, and absence of disclosure requirements.
5. Lack of transparency in the economic system that made proper judgment  by investors and others, for decision-making difficult.
6. Over-investment in several sectors.
7. Imprudent lending by international lenders.
8. Large real effective exchange rate appreciation.
As the crisis first occurred in Thailand, a look at the factors which led to the Thai crisis would help understand reasons for the emergence of the crisis.  Because of the appreciation of the Yen against the US dollar after the Plaza Accord of 1985, Japanese exports were becoming costlier and hence Japanese firms were on the lockout for cheap manufacturing locations. The cheap Thai labour attracted lot of FDI from Japan (and also from other countries. The high returns on short term investments attracted large portfolio investments and short-term funds to Thailand. The pegged exchange rate system followed by the SE Asian countries encouraged such investments because of the absence of exchange rate risk under that system. The high interest rate differential between the developed markets and Thailand (also other SE Asian countries) tempted banks to channel funds from developed economies to Thailand. The indiscriminate lending by banks (and other financial institutions) resulted in the over-expansion of several industries. The speculative investments in real estate created such a situation that that the occupancy rates in new buildings were only about 20 per cent. The inability of the borrowers to repay resulted in 58 of the 91 finance companies downing the shutters. The investment spurt and increase in the demand for labour made Thai labour very costly—reported to be 3 to 5 times than the labour in neighbouring countries including China. The Thai exports suffered a setback due to increasing cost and increasing competition from cheap Chinese goods. The increased spending and high cost in Thailand encouraged imports, causing alarming current account deficit. All the above developments created an all around panic and the feeling that the Thai currency, Baht, would have to be devalued became stronger. There was a run on the Baht—people wanted to convert Baht into dollar so that they could re-exchange dollar for more units of Baht when it would be devalued. The Thai Central bank sold more than $ 23 billions forward in a desperate attempt to defend Baht. This only encouraged speculation. Finally, from July 2, the Baht was allowed to float. It immediately depreciated by 20 per cent and further later. As the crisis, emerged, short-term foreign investors began to withdraw their money. The crisis soon spread to other SE Asian countries where the conditions, in several respects, were similar to those in Thailand. Between end of June 1997 and end of March 1998, depreciation of these currencies against the US ranged between 11 per cent and 74 per cent. Between end of June 1997 and end of January 1998, stock prices declined in the range of 32 to 53 per cent. As these SE Asian economies were highly integrated with the rest of the world, the crises have had its impact on the world economy as a whole. The high foreign trade to GDP ratio of these nations (varying between 50 and 120 per cent) is one indication of their global integration. Equally important are the inward and outward capital flows. 
See Table

Table Case 1.1                   Current Account Deficit (Per cent of GDP)
                                1995                1996                 1997
Indonesia                   -3.3                   NA                  -2.9
South Korea              -2.0                  -4.9                   -2.8
Malaysia                    -10.0                -4.9                   -5.8
Philippines                 -4.4                  -4.7                   -4.5
Thailand                     -6.0                 -7.9                    -3.9
India                          -1.1                 -1.8                    -1.0



Table Case 1.2                      External Debt Ratios (1996)
                         Total debt as % of               Short-term debt as % of total              Debt service
Indonesia                  67                                            25                                              37
Malaysia                   49                                             28                                             8
Philippines                54                                            19                                             14
Thailand                   56                                             41                                             12
India                        28                                              7                                              24


QUESTIONS:-
1. Discuss the possible impact of the South East Asian economic crisis on:
i. Exports of India to South East Asia.
ii. Exports of India to the rest of the world.
iii. Imports of South East Asia to India.