LIGHTING DEVICES TEST RESULTS Zambia Results June 2009

LIGHTING DEVICES TEST RESULTSZambia Results

June 2009

© 2008 International Finance Corporation – The World Bank All Rights Reserved ZAMBIA 2

Report Overview

1 Lighting Africa Overview / Market Intelligence Program

2 Market Research Approach

3 Lighting Devices Testing: Setting the Scene

4 Lighting Devices Tested

5 How Do We Assess Potential?

6 Brief Country Overview

7 Main Product Findings By Country

8 Recommendations By Country

9 Executive Summary

LIGHTING AFRICA OVERVIEW /MARKET INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM


What is Lighting Africa?

Lighting Africa is a World Bank – IFC initiative aimed at supporting the global lighting industry to catalyze a robust market for off-grid lighting products tailored to the needs of African consumers.

The Program’s mission is to make affordable, environmentally sustainable, durable, and safe lighting available to the masses, who currently depend on kerosene lanterns and candles to satisfy their lighting needs.


How does Lighting Africa support the development the lighting market?

The Lighting Africa program is a market-based approach, grounded in the recognition that:

There is a considerable commercial market opportunity and willingness to pay for off-grid lighting, substantiated by annual expenditures on kerosene amounting to $38 billion and $17 billion, globally and in Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively

Recent technological advancements in lighting, particularly in the area of Light-Emitting Diodes (LED), demonstrate increased promise to deliver affordable technological solutions tailored to the African marketplace and beyond

The most expedient and sustainable way to bring affordable, reliable lighting to Africa is by supporting the industry to design and deliver an array of products tailored to the needs of African consumers


How do we ensure Lighting Africa program activities respond to industry need?

All Lighting Africa program activities are designed with and for theindustry and other stakeholders

Through ongoing consultation with a wide array of stakeholders(including private companies, NGOs, financiers, governments and otherkey players along the supply chain) opportunities are identified whereLighting Africa can play an appropriate role in accelerating the off-gridlighting market in Africa


Lighting Africa: Program Areas

Policy: Addressing policy and regulatory barriers Financing: Improving access to finance along the distribution chain- for

example through partnership with financial institutions Product Quality Assurance: Addressing issues of quality with lighting

products to help consumers make informed purchase decisions and prevent market spoilage

Business-to-Business Linkages: Creating opportunities for different players along international supply chain to meet, exchange information and create business partnerships

Market Intelligence: Collecting & disseminating key market information to support successful market penetration

Business Environment: Facilitating market entry through the provision of relevant information, such as country-specific policy and regulatory information


What has the market research provided?

Key Market Information on consumer needs, preferences and finances.

The information has: Informed on the desired functionality and design attributes of different types

of lighting products within several product classes (Torch, Floodlight, Task Light, Lantern, Spot Light)

Enabled the industry to overcome potential challenges that are likely to accompany market entry in the African off-grid lighting market

Created a baseline to quantify the size of potential market segments in volume and value terms


Lighting Africa: Why Market Research?

While anecdotal evidence shows a substantial opportunity in the off-grid lighting market in Africa, much of the industry lacks the information needed to develop and market products appropriate to meet the needs of African consumers

This is the result of a premature and undeveloped market, but one with demonstrable potential – the fuel-based lighting market in Africa is currently worth more than $17 billion per year – yet is still largely undefined, untapped, and unrealized

In response to the industry’s call to provide greater comprehension to the scope of this emergent market opportunity, Lighting Africa developed a Market Research program

MARKET RESEARCH APPROACH


Research International: Background and Related Experience

The research was conducted by Research International East Africa, a subsidiary of the global market research firm: Research International is one of the world's largest custom market research agencies, with offices in 50 countries worldwide and over 30 years of expertise.


Research Methodology

Currently, the Lighting Africa market research program covers 5 countries: Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, Ethiopia and Tanzania

Two key market segments: households & micro-businesses in rural and urban areas

The market study involves studies of the market in Africa to provide insights that form the basis for innovative product ideas; and is comprised of three research methods:

1. An exploratory phase involving a qualitative product testing element2. A quantitative Habits and Attitudes survey of the population3. Quantitative Lighting Devices Testing, using the proprietary eValuateTM methodology, to quantify the acceptance and likely uptake of existing, new and revised product ideas for the market in Africa

LIGHTING DEVICES TESTING: SETTING THE SCENE


Lighting Devices Testing Context

The purpose of the lighting devices research is to:

– Assess consumer acceptance and potential for each of the lighting devices tested within the context of norms

– Prioritise and provide guidance as to which products to take forward to the next stage of development

HOW DO WE ASSESS POTENTIAL?


Sample structure

Twenty interviews were conducted per country Main purchasing decision makers were interviewed both prior to use and after recall.

Consumers also filled out a questionnaire during usage of the test lights. Interviews were conducted in peoples’ homes to ensure that observations were made

about the space lit and the kind of lighting used

LOCATION LSM NO.OF INTERVIEWS

Urban 1-4 1-5

Urban 5-10 6-10

Rural 1-4 11-15

Rural 5-10 16-20

Zambia


Is the idea genuinely new and unique?

Is it relevant to you?Is the idea clear to you? Do you find it exciting?

How often would you buy it?

Do you believe it?Do you think it would offer

value for money?Do you actually like the

idea?

Key Questions Asked To Qualitatively Evaluate Lighting Devices

Would you buy it?

Supported by spontaneous likes and dislikes


Key qualitative questions

Interviews focused on answering these questions:

Who is the consumer? Consumer demographics and characteristics of householdsHow does the consumer use light? Current lighting habits, attitudes, preferences and needs How do consumers perceive the products? Assessment of the new products versus product characteristics,

features, learning and marketing approach What does the consumer want? Assessment of needs for current lighting in and around the homeWhich products do consumers prefer? Product preferences (performance and design features) and

developing a quality standard for lighting How much is the consumer willing to pay? Consumer economics (intent and capacity to pay for lighting)


Predicting the likelihood of successful product launch

What we know about successful product launches is that there is a lot more at stake than merely identifying which products should be launched versus which shouldn’t. In predicting the likelihood of a successful product launch we must also identify key drivers that will ensure long term success

Within developing markets, measures of new product success are slightly different from other parts of the world. In developing markets consumers have little disposable income which means their behaviour with regards to new purchases will be quite conservative – they will not take chances buying into new products if they are not sure whether the product will work for them or not

In order to predict the likelihood of successful product launch, it is important to understand 3 critical measures: the “WHAT?”, the “WHY?” and the “WOW?”. These will be discussed in further detail in the next slides

Additional to these three measures, it must be kept in mind that the cost of the new product, in this case the lighting device, will undoubtedly remain a main driver in creating purchase intent amongst consumers with low levels of disposable income


The WHAT? Test

The WHAT test involves a check of the consumers’ understanding of the various lighting devices under consideration

For the lighting devices to be successful in the market, consumers need to be sure that the lighting devices:

Have a recognisable point of difference, i.e. that it is better than what they are using currently or that it could impact and improve their life in a significant manner

Are understood – it has to be clear how the devices will work

The product must have a recognisable point of difference


The WHY? Test

The WHY test involves a check of the consumers’ need for the various lighting devices under consideration

For the lighting devices to be successful in the market, consumers need to be convinced that they will be relevant to their lifestyle

If the lighting device is perceived to be technologically ‘too advanced’ or too difficult to operate, consumers will feel alienated– it will be perceived as a device for ‘them’- i.e. those people who have more money, and not for ‘me’

This point of difference has to be perceived as a benefit


The WOW? Test

The WOW test involves a check of the consumers’ excitement for the various lighting devices under consideration

For the lighting devices to be successful in the market, consumers need to be convinced that the devices will be innovative and creative

If the devices do not stand out from what is in the market currently, they won’t generate sufficient interest from consumers to encourage purchase and substitution away from other product types

This benefit must be exciting enough to overcome barriers to trial and usage


Traffic light rating system

A traffic light system has been used to report the overall rating provided by the respondents for the features and characteristics of each of the lighting devices:

Overall, the respondents were positive about the specific feature/characteristic+

+/-Overall, the respondents were positive about the specific feature/characteristic, however some respondents had remarks that require attention

- Overall, the respondents were negative about the specific feature/characteristic

BRIEF COUNTRY OVERVIEW

Zambia


Brief Country Overview: Zambia

Zambia

Interesting Facts:

Poverty is a major problem in Zambia. As many as 5 of 10 persons are unemployed.

The distribution of wealth amongst families in Zambia is poor (50.8% on the Gini coefficient).

The worsening global food prices pose serious challenges for this Southern African nation; where 8 out of 10 Zambians are employed in the agricultural sector.

ELECTRICITY


Suggestions for improvement- living standards

Water supply in the rural areas Amenities like:

– Schools – Clinics – Skills training centres – Modern market / shopping centre– Public library– Recreation facilities e.g. sports fields and parks

Improve roads (up-grade or tar them) Improve the water supply systems in the urban areas Cooperatives to be formed Make farming inputs available Loan facilities Street lights

Install electricity Build a better house – e.g. ‘burnt brick’

house, fix doors, have a cemented floor Roof house with iron sheets Paint the houses

The most important need is that for loan facilities to assist with major improvements like installation of electricity, street lights, building brick houses

Surrounding In-home


Likes and dislikes of not having electricity

My son who is doing grade 12 has left me because there is no electricity here at my house to enable him to study at night as candles are not as bright as lights from electricity. Even my children who stay with me here steal money so

that they can watch films at the market because I do not have electricity so they can’t watch television”

Female, Upper SEC, Rural

I like how bright electricity lights are and that things in the house look good and how easy and fast it is to cook using an electric stove. I dislike it because it has caused a lot of fires in the past and people have died due to electrical

shocks/faults. The other thing is that nowadays in Zambia, electricity has become too expensive and with my salary, I can’t manage to be paying for it every month.

Female, Lower SEC, Urban

Alternative lighting sources Likes of not having electricity Dislikes of not having electricity

• Candles• Kerosene lamp• A bulb connected to a car battery

No bills to pay – electricity is

too expensive in Zambia No risks associated with

electricity – fire, electrocution,

shock etc leading at times to

death

Cannot use household appliances e.g. TV, radio,

fridge Cannot do anything in the dark unless candles are

bought and sometimes one doesn’t have money for

that Dangerous – thieves can attack you Have to use firewood which produce smelly smoke Poor lighting


Electricity connection usage & attitudes

Connection Likelihood Determinants of

connection

Perceived Benefits of connection Barriers to connection

0-3 months None

Rural electrification Availability of power

lines Availability of money Ability to build a brick

house Kids finishing school

and getting employed When the big farms

connect to electricity

Lighting Cooking Reading / Studying at night Powering household equipments

e.g. TV, radio Heating / Warming the house Power “motor pump” for irrigation

to increase production Employment - Open a business

e.g battery charging, welding, salon and baking

Rear ‘grade chicken’ for sale Security

Lack of money - Cost of connection

Difficult to install since the government doesn’t offer any financial support

No power lines

3-6 months None

6-12 months None

12 months plus None

Not likely

None of the respondents was likely to get connected to electricity within the next 12 months, nor did they know of any plans for getting connected to the grid.

Ranging from = few respondents to = many respondents

LIGHTING


Current lighting situation

My current lighting situation is not the best. I don’t like it at all. I normally use candles but candles are too expensive and at the same time they produce a lot of smoke which

might be dangerous for one’s health. They also produce wax that drop on your clothes, on the table and everywhere else in your house. I don’t like them

Male, Upper SEC, Rural

I use the candle to light my shop but am not happy with my lighting situation because the candles finish very fast and are too expensive to buy all the time

Male, Lower SEC, Urban

My lighting is good as the 12 volts bulbs give me enough light for my household and I feel safer when using it than using a candle, as a candle is not all that bright.



Current Lighting Product- Usage

Product Used

Currently

Most Often Used

Least Often Used

Lapsed

usage

1.Candles

2. A bulb connected to a car battery

3. Torch

4. Firewood

5. Kerosene

lamp

6. Other (Brazier)

Candles are currently most often used for lighting while the torch is the least used.


Summary of lighting products presently used

LIGHTING PRODUCT

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Firewood - Multipurpose (heating, lighting, cooking)- Cheap-found everywhere

- Difficult to get firewood- Makes clothes dirty

A bulb connected to a car battery

- Adequate light intensity- Safe to use- Cheap to buy- Long lasting – can last up to 1 year- No running cost as it’s charged using solar

- When there is no sunlight you have to look for electricity to charge the car battery

Kerosene lamp - Cheap to acquire - Can explode and burn things when not closed properly- Produces a lot of dark smoke which can cause diseases like asthma - The smoke also makes your clothes smell of paraffin- Expensive to buy kerosene for fuel

Candles - Do not produce much smoke- Easily available at the local shops

- Inadequate light intensity- Too expensive- Not safe – can cause fire- Make your table and clothes dirty with wax- Does not last long

Torch - Portable - Expensive to buy batteries for running it

Other (Cell phone light)

- Comes in handy when one doesn’t have money to buy candles / paraffin

- The phone might go off if used for long as the battery goes down


Choice determinants & influencers of current lighting product

Usage Determinants Key Influencers

Affordability, safety and the light intensity of a device are the major determinants of usage. The main household head is usually the one who influences the

decision about what lighting device will be used.

Affordability Safety Light intensity Health Value for money Durability Quality Familiarity

Wife Husband Kids


Current lighting products: Bring it alive

Brazier

Blue candleRed Candle

Firewood


Current lighting products- different settings

We use candles for lighting in our home

Male, Lower SEC, Urban We normally put it (candle) on the table so that it can give enough light to all the corners of the room where it

is lit. Male, Lowe SEC, Urban

Yes we do but we normally use fire from the firewood we use for cooking to see when we are having supper, most of the times it’s dark already

when we are having supperFemale, Upper SEC, Rural

In the bedroom and eating area, we place them on a stand, so that they don’t fall and burn the house, but in

the lavatory we just carry it, and hold it or put it down because you can’t put it

anywhere else there. Male, Upper SEC, Rural

Living room Bedroom Study table

ShopChattingKitchen


Product Used Overall satisfaction Suggestions for improvement

Candle

• Make them stronger, bigger and taller• Make them affordable / cheaper• To be sold with a glass container – will help lock in the

smoke, avoid wind and fires

Firewood • None

Torch • Make batteries affordable / cheaper

Bulb connected to a car battery

• Make it bigger• Introduce energy saving bulbs like the electric ones

Kerosene lamp • Reduce the price of kerosene

Brazier • None

Cell phone light • Improve the light intensity

Current Lighting Products-satisfaction rating

Very satisfiedNot satisfied


Current lighting productsideal product

The ideal product for the respondents would be a “familiar” lighting device with adequate lighting

intensity to illuminate the whole room, it is safe and doesn’t have any running costs.

Key featuresIdeal product

Solar charged lantern

Coil shaped bulb (powered by

a solar-charged car battery)

Sunflower-shaped bulb with a

stand (solar powered)

A spot light with a hook to

hang on to the roof / wall

Solar powered bulbs that

hang on the wall like a wall

clock

Solar charged

Adequate light intensity

Portable

Easy to use

Light weight

Rechargeable battery

On / off knobs with low,

medium and high light settings

Doesn’t produce smoke

Small in size but strong

MAIN PRODUCT FINDINGS

TM 41

TEST PRODUCT EVALUATIONBefore Placement


Test product usagedemonstration

TM 41


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

A very unique product which was seen as very relevant mainly because of its light intensity and the fact that one can use it in two different rooms at the same time as it has two bulbs – the latter really

excited the respondents.

Test Product evaluation

none very

TM 41


What comes to mind when you see this

product

?

Test product associationTM 41

I think it’s a very good product

I think it’s a very good product for people like me who don’t have electricity to light up their house.

To use it and see what amount of light it can

produce.

I think that it’s a good product which lights very well at night in the sense that it looks like it can

give bright light because the lights are big which is very good.

A product that can give me more light than the candles I am currently

using

A very positive first impression was received with regards to TM 41 from the respondents


1. The many LED

bulbs

2. Strong light

intensity

3. Can be used in two

rooms

simultaneously -

has two light bulbs

4. Economical – solar

rechargeable

I say so because the lights are big with a lot of these tiny bulbs, I think together they can give enough light. And also, the battery seems to be very good because it is quite heavy and I believe it

can produce more power


The light was powerful, it’s good and one time we put our bulb outside and the whole surrounding was bright and I don’t think

you can compare it to an electricity bulb.


I like the way it is made and also the two bulbs it has such that you have light in two separate rooms using the same product


A find it very exciting because there is no need of looking for something to buy like candles, matches or even taking its battery for charging since it has all the things for lighting &

charging. I find it does not produce any smoke and it is safe to use.


Test product evaluation likesTM 41


1. Cables connecting

the bulbs to the

battery are too short

Size is ok for the product but the

length of the cables should be a bit

longer (the cables from the battery to

the bulbs)


Test Product Evaluation – Dislikes

TM 41


Feature Overall rating Comment

ShapeIt was unanimously agreed by all the

respondents that the TM 41 shape, size

and design are goodSize

Design

Handling / Controls The device was easy to operate. The only

problem was that the connection cables

from the bulbs to the battery were

considered too short

Colours It was unanimously agreed by all the

respondents that the colour and

writing / labelling of the TM 41 are good.Writing/ labeling

Test Product features evaluation

TM 41

Apart from connection cables from the battery to the bulbs that were deemed too short, TM41 was rated extremely positively on all the product features i.e. shape, size, colour and design,

i.e. the respondents were extremely satisfied with TM 41


Test Product characteristics

Suggestions for improvement Summary of satisfaction rating

Maker the solar panel bigger Quality of service (lighting power)

Reliability of service- battery life/availability

Uniqueness- new & different

A product for someone like me

Ease of use

TM 41 performed extremely well in both functional and aesthetic attributes

TM 41


Overall evaluation

Likelihood to purchase

Worth more than other products

Price willing to pay

TM 41 is perceived to have more Value For Money than the products currently in the market and thus the respondents are very willing to purchase and try the product

Purchase Intent & Price

USD 9.8- 48.8

TM 41


Test productsummary before testing

Most of the Zambian respondents believe that when a lamp is big in

size and round in shape, it is bound to produce adequate light intensity.

Consequently, as this was the case with TM 41, it was rated very

positively in terms of light intensity.

The ability to use it in two different rooms simultaneously was seen as

very relevant to the respondents lifestyles since they didn’t have to buy

more than one lighting device to light the various rooms in use at night.

All the respondents who tested this product believed it had value for

money; they were willing to purchase it even before they had tested it.

Every respondent thought it was a product well suited to people like

them who find it hard to raise running costs for lighting devices (e.g.

batteries) and also who cannot be able to afford electricity.

TM 41

TEST PRODUCT EVALUATIONAfter Recall


After having used TM 41, respondents yet again rated it as unique and different and still maintained that it was relevant to their life

Test product comparative evaluation

Evaluation Before Placement After Placement

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

TM 41


Feature Rating Comment

Product uniqueness

Very new and different like I said that it’s my first time using, seeing it.

Lighting adequacy

The light was very good and it was very bright. I liked it a lot. It’s a good light.

Battery life It has a very strong battery and solar panel and it is of good quality

Ease of operation Yes, I did understand and if you want, I can teach you how to use it. When I was using TM 41, I found no difficulties and it was so easy as 1,2,and 3.

Relevance It could be very relevant because I will be saving money for instance, I would stop buying candles and my children would greatly benefit from the light as it seems to be producing enough light for reading.

Durability I think it’s very strong, and it can last even for 6 years if you just take care of it.

Test product evaluation: general characteristics

TM 41

Overall, this lamp TM 41 is something, it is a lamp that everyone has to have regardless of the status, whether rich or poor as nowadays the electricity supply is not enough to

cater for all the people in Zambia


Feature Rating

Before

Rating

After

Comment

Shape

It was unanimously agreed by all

the respondents that all features of

TM 41 were good

Size

Design

Ease of handling

Controls

Colours

Writing/ labeling

Test Product features comparative evaluation

TM 41


1. The many LED bulbs

2. Strong light intensity

3. Can be used in two

rooms

simultaneously - has

two light bulbs

4. Easy to handle

5. Can power the radio

6. Economical – solar

rechargeable

7. Good quality

It’s bright and very easy to handle and the fact that it is

charged by solar is very economical.


This is a very good product and it’s the easiest, good

gadget that one can ever get and use. I easily

understood how to use it


TM 41 is made for poor people like me because it will

provide me with the same amount of light in my house

and it can be used for my radio. It can serve two

purposes, one for light and another for my radio. I can

also be saving the amount that I am spending on

candles every month

Male, Lower SEC, Rural

It has a battery and a solar panel and it is of good

quality.


Test Product Evaluation – Likes

TM 41


1. Cables

connecting the

lamps to the

battery are too

short

2. Writings

explaining how to

use the product is

too small

Well, the only things I disliked were the

cables; because they were too short,

otherwise everything else was good


I don’t like the writings because I cannot

read what is written


Test Product Evaluation: Dislikes

TM 41

Suggestions for improvement Increase the length of the cable that connects the bulb to the battery Use a bigger solar panel Consider putting a socket on the battery so that one can use the solar

power on it to power other household appliances Make it possible to switch off one bulb in isolation – currently both bulbs go

off at the same time


Test product evaluationproduct usage

Understanding of usage: The product usage and operation was very clear to all the respondents both before and after usage

Ease of usage: None of the respondents had a problem using TM 41 as they understood how to operate and charge it. The knobs were also very easy to operate

Future usage: All the respondents were positive about using the product in the future. The only thing that would stop them would be finances, if it’s too expensive

Future usage settings: the most common settings where TM 41 would be used included:

As a security light outside Living room Bedroom

Relevance: TM 41 was considered very relevant to the lives of all the respondents especially because of its light intensity, solar recharging, two big bulbs which can be used to light two different rooms and the fact that its battery can be connected to the radio

Am very clear on what to expect from this product I can’t wait to see it working at night. It will be a nice time indeed for us as a family


TM 41


All the respondents who tested TM 41 will definitely purchase the product in the future so long as

its price falls within the range they are willing and able to pay for it

Test product evaluation: Pricing & purchase intent

Feature Before placement After recall


Worth more than other

products

TM 41


Test product pricing scenarios

Pricing Scenarios Amount Response Reasons

Willingness to pay more than the price mentioned before placement

USD 9.8- 48.8

This is attributed to the strong light intensity, the two bulbs which can be used in different rooms simultaneously and the solar recharging option

Willingness to purchase at the RRP

USD 76.8

Willingness to purchase if financing is available to offset part of purchase and maintenance cost

Due to affordability and poverty situation especially in the rural areas

TM 41

As much as the respondents are eager and willing to purchase TM 41 at the quoted retail price, majority do not have the purchasing power and are thus very open to financing

(either as a loan or hire purchase) so that they can be able to offset part of purchase price. They argue that it will save them a substantial amount every year as they will not be incurring running cost. Some of the reasons as to why it’s perceived to be expensive

include: Size of the lamps ; Number of lamps and the Light intensity

UR 83




UR 83


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

Due to the product uniqueness, it generated a lot of excitement around trial;

It was considered to be very relevant especially as it could be used both as a torch and as a lamp

Test Product evaluation UR 83

none very


What comes to

mind when you see this product?

Test product associationUR 83

A very good product suitable for people who don’t have power in their

homes. It’s something new in the market as I have never seen such a

lighting product anywhere else.

I think it’s a very good and simple product.

It’s solar charged and that makes it very good. It is easily

portable.

When I see UR-83, I ask myself if it would give

me enough light?

I have run out of words because of how amazing

this lamp is

This is a very good product; I find it small though I am not too sure on the intensity

of light that t it can produce. I am sure though that it is user friendly because it is rechargeable by solar and one can carry it around without any difficulties

I have noticed and liked the solar battery which is small and can be easily

connected to a bulb

It is a nice lamp that may benefit so many people of my village.


1. Portability

2. Light intensity

3. Economical – solar rechargeable

4. Ease of use

5. 3 light settings – low medium and high

6. Design and shape

7. Colour

8. Modern

9. Multipurpose – lamp and torch

I like its size and the amount of light it produces. Its size

is very unique and modern, you can put or use it

anywhere at night without any difficulties


One thing I like is that it can be carried around or fixed

somewhere when using it. It can be used as a torch as

well as just as a light


I like the way the lights shine and the way they are

made as you can control the intensity according to need


I like UR 83 because of its portability. I can move it from

my bedroom to other rooms, it looks bright enough for

my house


Test product evaluation likesUR 83


1. Size I like everything about it except the size, it is

too small.



UR 83

A very well received product with not many dislikes



Shape It was unanimously agreed by the respondents that

the UR 83’s shape is good, handy and allows it to be

stable when placed on a surface

Size Majority of the respondents thought that the size is

perfect for portability, a few wanted the lamp made

bigger to produce more light when being used as a

lamp

Design It was generally agreed by the respondents that the

UR 83’s design is perfect

Handling / Controls It was generally agreed by all the respondents that the

UR 83 is very easy to use and to operate

Colours It was generally agreed by all the respondents that the

UR 83 has good colour and clear writing / labelingWriting/ labeling


UR 83

UR 83 was positively rated across all its features except on its size which a number of respondents perceived to be small – one of the reason as to why they want the size increased is the

perception that a bigger device would produce better and brighter light.


Test Product characteristicsUR 83


Bigger solar panel

Increase the size of the

device

Quality of service (lighting power)




Ease of use

UR 83 was rated very positive overall in all its functional attributes


Overall evaluation




UR 83 was considered to have value for money and could not actually be compared to

any other product in the market. The main reason for this is that it has a high light

intensity despite its small size, it is portable and is also multipurpose (can be both as

a lamp and as a torch).

UR 83 Purchase Intent & Price

USD 4.9 – 29.3



Overall, this product was liked a lot before placement and was very highly rated in

terms of the following attributes:

– Design / Shape

– Uniqueness

– Relevance

– Excitement

– Ease of understanding

– Durability

However, some respondents were doubtful at first as to whether it would produce

adequate light, due to its small size (both the size of the UR 83 and that of the

solar charging panel)

The perceived purchase price was also too low as compared to the actual product

price – please note that this was not very much product-related but was due to the

economic capability of the respondents

UR 83



The product was rated the same before and after usage in terms of uniqueness, relevance, excitement and clarity

UR 83 Test product comparative evaluation

Evaluation Before Placement After Recall

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity



Product uniqueness To be honest, and God can be my witness, I have never seen

anything like UR-83. It was my first time to see it

Lighting adequacy This is the best light I have seen. Its light is so bright, I have

never seen that before

Battery life The battery that is inside is very strong , when I was using the

light, it lasted very long, I don’t even have to worry where to

buy it because I know it is very strong.

Ease of operation The controls (knobs) for on and off were hard to turn

Relevance Its very relevant because I can use it in two ways. One as a

light in my house and the other I can use it like a torch, move

around outside with it

Durability I cannot tell because I am not a witch doctor who can just see

and tell that something is strong or not, but what I can say is

that it can last long depending on your usage and how you are

taking care of it

UR 83Test product evaluation- general characteristics

By and large UR 83 was amongst the most well rated products and majority of the respondents had nothing they disliked about it.


Features RatingBefore

RatingAfter Comment

Shape It was unanimously agreed by all the respondents that the UR 83 has a good shape

Size As much as majority of the respondents felt that the size was perfect because it made it portable, a few disagreed and wanted the device made bigger

Design It was unanimously agreed by all the respondents that the UR 83 design is good both before and after usage

Handling / Controls Majority of the respondents complained about how hard it was to move the control knobs in an attempt to put it on / off. They strongly think that they should be made easier to turn on / off. After usage, the ease of handling was rated lower than before use mainly because of the problem with the control knobs

Colours It was unanimously agreed by all the respondents that the UR 83’s colour is good both before and after usage

Writing/ labeling Respondents had a problem as the writings are written in a foreign language they cannot understand


UR 83


1. Portability

2. Light intensity

3. Economical – solar rechargeable

4. 3 light settings – low medium and high

5. Ease of use

6. Design and shape

7. Size

8. Colour

9. Smoke-free

The shape and size are very good as they make the

device very easy to carry around and to hold in the

palm of the hand. The design is very nice and its

unique compared to other torches I have seen around


The colour is good as it does not easily show

accumulated dust


It is very easy to use because you can either put it on

the table or you can hang it


Am very clear on what to expect from UR-83 because

it does not emit smoke neither does it incur any

charging costs



UR 83


1. Controls-not

flexible

2. Size

3. Writings in foreign

language

The shape and design are perfect, but the size is not good, as it is too small, even the solar panel is too small

to charge this lamp

Male Upper SEC, Rural I just dislike the controls (knobs) for turning off and on,

because it is difficult to turn them off or on.

Male, Upper SEC, Urban The writings are not good as these writings are written in

a language that I cannot read and understand.

Female Lower SEC, Urban The size is not good, it is very small and the control

knobs are also not good as you need to use force when turning them on/ off



UR 83

Suggestions for improvement Improve the control knobs – e.g. use the ones that need only to be pressed Use a bigger solar panel Increase the size of UR 83 Introduce a phone charging port When planning for the distribution and selling of UR 83, consideration must be made on battery

availability



UR 83

Understanding of usage: All the respondents were clear on how to use UR 83 Ease of usage: it was deemed very easy to use and handle, except for the

control buttons Future usage: All the respondents were positive about buying the product in

future. However, the replacement batteries would also have to be available to them just in case they require them at a later stage in the product - some even wanted the lamps to be left with them.

Future usage settings: living room, bedroom, toilet, bathroom and when going out at night

Relevance: perceived to be extremely relevant to their needs considering that there would be no running costs

I will be using it to light my house and also as a task light outside the house at night, to check on my chickens and to go to the toilet

Female, Upper SEC, RuralIt is very relevant to me here in the village as I am poor and can’t manage to buy

candles every day Male, Upper SEC, Rural

KO 13




KO 13


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

Due to the many cables attached to the device, majority of respondents initially had a problem understanding how to connect and operate the KO 13


none very

KO 13


What comes to

mind when you see

this product?

Test product associationKO 13

What comes to my mind is just for me to request you to sell this lamp to

me.

I think its very simple to use and I think it’s a

blessing for people who don't have connection

to electricity.

It is a nice lamp that could benefit so many people from my village.

This is a very good product and I think it’s

useful for people like me who don’t have

electricity.

What comes to my mind is that this KO 13 would help me in so many ways like saving money that I would otherwise be using to buy kerosene and that my

children would have enough light for studying


1. Solar recharging

2. Ease of use

3. Portability

4. Size

5. Design

6. Safe

7. Colour

The size is very good as it is easy to carry around and the design is also good as it allows you to turn on/ off the light

with ease

Male, Upper SEC, Rural It is very safe to use without the fear of it causing a fire

and I am sure that it does not pollute/ smoke the house like candles do.

Female, Lower SEC, Urban I like KO 13 because of the amount of light it produces,

that it is safe to use (no fear of you getting burnt) and also that it uses solar for charging its batteries.

Male, Lower SEC, Urban The design is very good and unique and the colour used

is nice as it does not fade off

Male, Upper SEC, Rural It is easy to use and you can direct it to light anywhere

you want it to light


Test product evaluation likesKO 13


1. Too many cables

making it

complicated to

connect

2. Lamp small in size

3. Solar panel small

in size

4. Lamps have no

stand

The shape of the lamp is not good. It would have been

better if the the lamp was round and bigger. It is easy to

use though, however the cables that connect the lamp are

not good; I know that you can twist them, but there is a

danger that the connection inside might break


It’s just the size of the lamp that I dislike and the way these

lights are made without a proper stand. even the solar

panel is too small to charge this lamp


These cables are very loose where they connect. You find

that when you connect them, the light does not turn on.


Yes the cables and how they connect look a bit complicated



KO 13



Shape Majority of the respondents preferred the lamp to be one big bulb, round in shape, so that it could produce more light

Size The lamp size was thought to be too small and respondents wanted it bigger so that it could produce more light

Design Overall, the design was rated as very good and attractive especially as the lamps are flexible

Handling/Controls Control knobs and buttons are easy to put on / off. However, due to the many cables, it was perceived to be complicated to connect and when the cables were loose the lamps did not work well. Nonetheless, it became easier to connect after using the product once or twice

Colours Was very well rated as it can be easily wiped if it gets dusty / dirty and is not likely to fade out

Writing/ labeling Was rated highly on clarity, legibility and on the language used


KO 13

The shape and size of the lamp were not well rated. A bigger lamp that is round in shape would have been preferred as it is believed that it would produce more light. If this

were to be effected, it would mean that also the battery and solar panel would have to be made bigger so that the battery would charge faster and store more energy.




Bigger lamp

Bigger solar panel

Lamp to be round in shape

Make batteries easily

available in the market





Ease of use

A few respondents think the battery is too small to power the two lamps. The many cable connections for KO 13 complicate the use of the product.

KO 13


Overall evaluation




Majority of the respondents are willing to buy KO 13 and are convinced that it is worth much more than the products currently in the market.


USD 8.8- 23.4

KO 13



Overall KO 13 was rated very well on design and uniqueness especially due to:– The fact that the lamp stands are flexible and thus one can manipulate them to illuminate

in any direction

– Ability to put off one lamp while the other is still in use

– Ability to use it in two different rooms simultaneously

Majority of the respondents were thus very excited with it. The major drivers of

this excitement included:– Twin lamps which can be used in two different rooms simultaneously

– Solar recharging option

However, a number of respondents had some suggestions for improvement which

included:– Size – the lamps should be bigger

– Shape – the lamp should be rounded in shape

– Connections – to be simplified for ease of use

– Lamps to have a lamp stand to allow them to stand on their own when not hanged

The very first impression that the respondents had of the KO 13 is that it would be

a possible solution to their lighting problems and hence might be relevant to their

lifestyles

KO 13



Most respondents understood better how to use KO 13 after usage than before, since they had had a chance of trying it for several days.



Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

KO 13



Product uniqueness

I find KO 13 very new and different because of the experience I have heard with it. Although it was my first time of seeing it, I was amused at how bright its light was. You could have thought we had electricity here.

Lighting adequacy I had the opportunity of using it and was very satisfied with the amount of light it was illuminating…… the light was sufficient for my needs, as it was lighting (illuminating) with similar intensity as that of electricity.

Battery life The battery is very strong and lasts long

Ease of operation At first, it was difficult or hard to learn how to use it but when you left, I tried it along and found that it was very simple and easy.

Relevance It would be very relevant to my lifestyle as it would provide me with lighting that does not cause any health problems and that is very safe to use.

Durability KO 13 is very durable or very strong; It has been made in such a way that the cables have connections, the lamps are not heavy, can’t fall down or break because of the lightness (weight).

Overall opinion Because I have seen and used it and now I know how beneficial it is to my lifestyle. I did not buying candles for the 5 days; I used the KO 123 and as a result I have saved ZMK 5,000.00 (USD 1). Now imagine, if I had it in say 1st January, I would have saved ZMK 152,000.00 (USD 29.7) as at yesterday because ZMK 152,000.00 (USD 29.7) is what I have used on candles all along

Test product evaluation- general characteristics

KO 13


Feature RatingBefore

RatingAfter

Comment

Shape Most of the respondents prefer a round shape for the lamp head

Size Majority of the respondents believe that if the lamps were bigger then KO 13 would produce more light

Design KO 13 design was rated as perfect by all the respondents

Handling / Controls Initially, majority of the respondents had a problem while trying to connect the lamps to the battery but they grasped it well after using it for a few days. However, the controls were rated as very handy and easy to use

Colours

It was unanimously agreed by all the respondents that the colours, writing and labelling for KO 13 are goodWriting/ labeling


KO 13


1. Flexibility to use it in

more than one room

2. Flexibility to operate

the 2 lamps

independently

3. Light intensity

4. Portability

5. Recharging options

6. Design

I find KO 13 very exciting in the sense that you can put one

lamp in the bedroom and the other lamp in the sitting room.

And when you have finished what you are doing in the

sitting room, you can switch either off, independent of the

other


I liked the way it was illuminating my house and the way my

family was very happy to be using it


It’s bright enough and very portable, that is what I like about

this lighting gadget.


I have liked the charging system as you can charge it either

by solar or A.C power (electricity).


Test Product Evaluation: Likes

KO 13


1. Too many cables

2. Shape of the lamp

3. Lamp small in size

4. Solar panel small in

size

5. Battery size

The only thing that I didn’t like very much was the number of cables that the product has. There are a lot of connections to be made. It should just have been made simple with two cables as there are

only two lights Female, Upper SEC, Rural

The design is perfect, but the size is not good, as it is very small, even the solar panel is too small to charge this lamp


The battery is too small for this type of a lamp because when I was using the lamp after five hours, I noticed that it started to become

lowFemale, Lower SEC, Urban


KO 13

Suggestions for Improvement Make the bulbs / lights bigger and round in shape so that they can produce more light Put a hook on the lamps for hanging them for instance, on the roof Consider putting a stand on the lamps so that if one decides not to hang them, they can stand on their own Reduce the number of cables / connections to simplify connecting the bulbs to the batteries Consider increasing the size and weight of the battery so that it is able to store more energy and thus

increase the battery life before recharging



Understanding of usage: At first respondents had a hard time understanding how to connect the many cables from the battery to the lamps. However, it became clearer with consequent connections and they could connect it on their own……..At first it was hard, when you demonstrated how to put all the cables, it seemed very complicated at first, but now it’s easy.

Ease of usage: After understanding how to connect the cables from the battery to the lamps, using KO 13 turned out to be very easy

Future usage: Most respondents would use KO 13 in future but only with the solar recharging option. This is to avoid running costs associated with the AC recharging option

Future usage settings: KO 13 is most likely to be used in the following areas: Living room Bedroom Kitchen Studying

Relevance: KO 13 was considered as very relevant to the respondents’ lifestyles especially since they are not connected to electricity and may not afford to in the near future….. “Very relevant in the sense that I would be using it to light my house. As you know these candles that we buy are very expensive so having a lighting product like KO 13 will help in not spending money on candles, even our house would be looking very nice at night because of the bright lights “

KO 13


All the respondents are willing to buy KO 13. However, due to its price they would only do it in two or three instalments as they cannot afford the whole amount at once.

Test product evaluation pricing & purchase intent

Feature Before Placement After Recall



products

KO 13





USD 8.8- 23.4 Light intensity Ability to be used in more than one room Ability to operate the lights independently

Willingness to purchase at the RRP USD 50.5 They are willing to purchase at this price due to the reasons above on condition they can be allowed to pay in two or more instalments


This is because they don’t have the disposable income to pay the whole amount at one go

Willingness to purchase without solar panel (KO13/ HI65 only )

USD 25.3 This is because leaving out the solar panel would mean them incurring monthly running costs which they are basically avoiding

Willingness to purchase solar panel separately This is a possibility that would be explored only if financing was not available and if it would be impossible to pay in instalments. They would thus purchase the device and the solar panel later when they get more money

Purchase price (without solar panel) with monthly AC running cost

USD 31.1 This would mean constant monthly running costs which would be expensive in the long run

KO 13


Trial intent remains high for the product after the testing period; the product is still perceived to be worth more than other products currently available to respondents

UR 83 Test product evaluation Pricing & purchase intent:




products





USD 4.9 – 29.3

Uniqueness, quality, light intensity, multipurpose (both as a torch and to light the room) and portability

Willingness to purchase at the RRP USD 52.7


Due to poverty and the possibility of not affording it even though one is willing to buy

UR 83

The price the respondents are willing to pay for this product before usage varies widely as it is not only influenced by how much they think the product is worth, but also by their financial

capability which is very low However, they seem to be ready to pay the RRP of USD 52.7 after usage as it seems to dawn

on them that they would no longer be incurring running costs – they claim that for the 5 days they used the lamp they were able to save quite a substantial amount of money which they

would have otherwise been using to buy candles

HI 65




HI 65


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

There is a task lamp in the Zambian market that resembles HI 65 and thus this resulted in lack of uniqueness and excitement. This also explains why the respondents easily

understood what to expect from it


none very

HI 65



product

?

Test product associationHI 65

What immediately comes to mind is that at least someone is

thinking about us people who are poor and cannot afford electricity

so that we can also enjoy life

It’s a very good light especially for studying but I think it can

also be used for other purposes like just for lighting in the home.

What comes to my mind when I see such a product is that if it produces light like what I saw at my brother’s house, then I surely need to have it as well When I look at this product, I thinks it’s a

good product for people who don’t have electricity in their homes especially

those that have children who need to study at night.

I have seen some products similar to this one from time to time - I have seen a study

lamp before but the one I saw uses batteries instead

of solar


1. Recharging

options

2. Design

3. Flexible lamp

stem

I have liked the charging system as you can

charge it either by solar or A.C power

(electricity)


Design is perfect


I have liked the way this flexi stem is made,

because I can bend it in the direction I want

to use the light


Test product evaluation likesHI 65


1. Light intensity

I have just disliked the small size it has but the rest

is good


Not, it does not give a good amount of light for

the purposes of illuminating my household as it is

very small in size



HI 65



Shape The shape was rated as good though a few

respondents would have preferred it to be

round

Size Was rated as too small (both the lamp and the

bulbs inside) and thus related to the weak light

intensity

Design Rated as perfect by majority of the respondents

Handling / Controls It was unanimously agreed amongst all the

respondents who tried HI 65 that it was very

handy and easy to use

Colours It was unanimously agreed by all the

respondents that the HI 65 colour and writing /

labelling are goodWriting/ labeling


HI 65

The size of the lamp and that of the bulbs were seen to be too small hence producing

inadequate light intensity which cannot illuminate the whole house. Otherwise all the

other features were positively rated overall




Increase size of lighting

device and the bulbs inside





Ease of use

The rating for HI 65 was just average due to the inadequate light intensity, low battery life

and lack of uniqueness

HI 65


Overall evaluation




The likelihood to purchase this lamp was average since most respondents concurred that

it would only be useful for specific tasks e.g. reading


USD 3.9- 19.5

HI 65



HI 65 was rated average due to the small size of the lamp and the bulbs

which the respondents believe cannot be able to give adequate lighting to

light the whole room.

The battery it uses is also not familiar nor available in the market and thus

would be very difficult to replace if it gets lost or damaged.

There are several study lamps in the market already, that resemble the HI 65

the only difference and advantage at the same time is that HI 65 uses

rechargeable batteries and can be recharged by both solar and/ or AC unlike

the other ones which use AAA batteries.

Most respondents would rather have a device that lights the whole room

which is not the case with HI 65 and thus think its mainly suited for particular

tasks like studying making it quite irrelevant to them – they need a device

that can illuminate the whole room.

HI 65



After recall, the product is seen as equally clear and unique however its ratings on relevance and

excitement dropped. This can be mainly be associated with the product’s low light intensity.



Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

HI 65



Product uniqueness Yes, it was my first time to see such a lighting product. All my neighbours were very, very excited and came to watch and they wanted to see you so that you could also give them to use however many of them said they had seen something like this product before.

Lighting adequacy Like I said earlier, it did not give me the light that I expected. It was not bright enough to light up the whole room, as I would have desired.

Battery life The lamp’s battery doesn’t last very long, I was very disappointed with it as we had to recharge it after using it for only 1 hour.

Ease of operation It is very easy because you can either put it on the table or you can hang it………I did not have any problems with it after you had explained to me how to use it and how to take care of it

Relevance Relevant and very important especially for people who study at night in our village. It will help them a lot. You see it doesn't produce any smoke and that saves them from having breathing problems from the smoke that candles and other lighting devices like paraffin lamps may cause.

Durability It’s very strong and I think it will last long. As you can see there was a day it fell off the table but nothing happened to it and it’s still working perfectly.

Test product evaluation- general characteristics

HI 65

The overall rating of HI 65 was average as it was only ideal for studying or at the shop. This is

because of its short battery life and inadequate light intensity.


Feature Rating

Before

Rating

After

Comment

Shape It was unanimously agreed by all the respondents

that the HI 65’s shape was good though a number

would prefer it to be round

Size The size of HI 65 (both the lamp and the bulbs)

was considered to be small hence the inadequate

light intensity

Design

It was unanimously agreed by all the respondents

that all the features of HI 65 were good

Handling /

Controls

Colours

Writing/ labeling


HI 65

The shape is very good. The size is too small and the design is very good as it is easy to carry and it can be put anywhere you want it to be. The colours used and writings are very nice as I can read

nearly everything written on the productFemale, Lower SEC, Urban


1. Ease of use

2. Portable

3. Flexibility

4. Safe

5. Adjustable light and

light settings

6. Design

Very exciting as I can adjust the lights to my needs and that

it can be used or put at any place any time without any

difficulties


It is very simple and easy to use


It is user friendly and very safe. It will not burn or cause fire

like what candles do nor will it pollute the environment like

kerosene does.


I like the design, it’s something you place anywhere e.g at

the table and direct the light wherever you want to.

Female, Upper SEC, Rural Size is too small and the design is very good as it is easy to

carry and it can be put anywhere you want it to be



HI 65


1. Battery life

2. Light intensity

3. Small in size

4. Lamp stand is

fragile

I dislike it when the battery runs out fast even after charging it

for a long time


The lamp stand is not good as the flexi stem can break when

trying to bend it in the direction you want


This light is not ok. It gives enough light but not to a large area

and it’s not very bright like I expected. You see, my sitting

room where we sit in the evening to chat before we go to

bed is quite big and this light called HI 65 did not satisfy me

because it did not give as much light as I thought



HI 65

Suggestions for improvement Improve battery life Improve the light intensity so that it can light up the whole room Put a bigger lamp in it so as to get more light intensity Do away with AC recharging



Understanding of usage: All the respondents were very clear on how to operate HI 65 before and after usage

Ease of usage: Some of them had already used a similar lighting device which is currently in the market (the only difference with HI 65 is that the latter has a rechargeable battery unlike the former which uses non-rechargeable batteries)

Future usage: Unless the suggested improvements are effected, the future usage of this product is not very promising

Future usage settings: This light is likely to be used in the following areas:StudyingBedroomSitting roomKitchenBusiness premise – shopOutside the house

Relevance: Though some respondents thought of HI 65 to be relevant to their needs, a good majority of the respondents thought it would only be relevant for study purposes due to the fact that it cannot illuminate the whole room

My children used it for studying because its light was good enough for studying. I tried to use it to light my house, especially the bedroom, but the light was not enough to illuminate the whole room

Male, Lower SEC, UrbanNot really for me but I think its more for the people who study at night because it looks like a study lamp.


HI 65


The value for money and likelihood to purchase HI 65 diminishes after placement mainly because of inadequate light intensity and low battery life





products

HI 65





USD 3.9- 19.5 This is mostly being compared to a similar product that is currently in the market – HI 65 is however given a slightly higher price than the latter due to its solar / AC rechargeable batteries

Willingness to purchase at the RRP USD 22.2 This is due to the fact that when you buy it and use the solar panel to recharge, you will never incur any running costs


This is mainly due to the low purchasing power of the respondents yet they want to buy the product

Willingness to purchase without solar panel (KO13/ HI65 only )

USD 12.8

This is because it will mean recharging using the AC which will in turn translate to monthly running costs that the respondents are trying to avoid

Willingness to purchase solar panel separately afterwards

Purchase price (without solar panel) with monthly AC running cost

USD 33.7

HI 65

RY 04




RY 04


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

Although RY 04 is not unique or new to the respondents, they are very excited about the fact that it can be recharged and one doesn’t have to keep on buying batteries thus lowering their

running costs


none very

RY 04



product

?

Test product associationRY 04

When I saw it I thought it was an ordinary torch and

that it uses batteries. What comes to my mind is to see on how this product

works and how it is different from other torches.

This product is very useful to all the people. Even if you have electricity in your home, you still need a torch to

move around in dark corners and also when there is no electricity for you to

see where you are going n the dark or else if you are outside, snakes might

bite you because it’s dark What comes to my mind

when I first saw it was that I wanted to see how different

this product is to other products that look like it

I think it’s a good product for those people that have

no electricity in their homes. They could use it to see in places that are

dark at night.

I think it’s a good product and it helps a lot for

those people that have no electricity.


1. Portability

2. Ease of use

3. Shape

4. Uses rechargeable

batteries

I like the way it is made, the shape is good as

it cannot slip out of your hand and it is stable

when you place it on the table. It is easy to

operate and you can move around with it

without any problems


I like it, the colour and its lighting situation and

also the fact that it doesn’t use non-

rechargeable batteries.


It’s easy to carry especially when going to visit

friends at night or, when going to the toilet


Test product evaluation likesRY 04


1. AC charging

option

2. Writing in foreign

language

There is nothing I dislike about RY 04, only

the way it is being charged. I don’t like the

charging component of the product because it

uses electricity


The writings are not good as they are written

in a language that I cannot read and

understand


Test Product Evaluation:Dislikes

RY 04



Shape It was unanimously agreed by all the respondents that the RY 04 has a good shape

Size A few of the respondents suggested that the RY 04 should be made smaller so that they can be able to keep it in their pockets when they are not using it

DesignIt was unanimously agreed by all the respondents that the RY 04 has a good design and was easy to handleHandling/ Controls

Colours It was unanimously agreed by all the respondents that the RY 04 has a good colour

Writing/ labeling There a was a major concern amongst respondents due to the fact that the product is labelled in a foreign language and that they are neither able to read nor understand the meaning


RY 04

Apart from the writing and labeling which can neither be read nor understood by the respondents as it is written in a foreign language (Chinese), the size of the product was the only other element that a few of the

respondents complained about – they prefer it to be smaller so that they can carry it easily with them e.g. in the pocket.

… shape, size are very good and it is not heavy and can be carried around without any difficulties. The materials used are very good and the colour that is used does not accumulate dust and can be easily cleaned Male, Upper SEC, Rural




To be recharged using solar Quality of service (lighting power)




Ease of use

RY 04’s low battery life makes it unreliable thus affecting its value for money

RY 04


Overall evaluation




Ability to recharge RY 04 gives it an edge above the products currently in the market and the respondents are very willing to purchase it as it will reduce their running costs.


USD 2 – 3.9

RY 04



Majority of the respondents do not think RY 04 is a new product. The only thing that

excites them is the fact that with RY 04, you do not have to keep buying batteries as

its batteries are rechargeable by electricity, reducing their running costs significantly

As much as the rechargeable battery excites them, they are concerned about the

availability of batteries in the market as they have no idea what the battery looks like

or whether it’s currently available in the market

A few respondents also suggested a smaller size for RY 04 so that they can easily

pocket it when on the move and not using it. The rest of the respondents were

nonetheless happy with the size.

Apart from these the rest of the functional and aesthetic features / attributes were

rated very well

I would say that it’s just ok and nicely made or designed. The shape is ok and the

size for me could have been a bit smaller so that I can just put it in my pocket if I am

not using it. Female, Lower SEC, Urban

RY 04



RY 04 is not new to the respondents as there are already other torches with the same design and shape in the market, however they do feel the product is very relevant, exciting and easy/clear to use


Evaluation Before placement After recall

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

RY 04


Feature Rating Verbatim

Product

uniqueness

Not very new and different, I have seen a torch before

Lighting adequacy I found RY 04 very exciting because of the way it has been made. The

lights are so bright that you can have diner in doors. Even when you

are using it, it feels so nice and can bring pride to you and your family.

Battery life I don’t know about the battery as I was wondering what it looks like.

But I think it is very strong because from the time you brought it, I have

never charged it, but it still has power.

Ease of operation No it didn’t find any difficulty, even my youngest child was able to

operate it.

Relevance It was very relevant, I used it to check on my chicken at night, as we

have been experiencing a lot of break-ins by thieves

Durability I think it can last even more than 5 years, if you take good care of it

Test product evaluation:General characteristics

RY 04

This product is for everyone regardless of their financial status. Nowadays, here in Zambia, you find that nearly all people who have a car have torches as one of the requirements for roads safety”


Feature RatingBefore

RatingAfter

Comment

Shape The shape is liked by all the respondents

Size Majority of respondents did not have any problem with the size of RY 04, a few wanted it made smaller for portability purposes

Design

Handling/Controls

Colours

It was unanimously agreed by all the respondents that RY 04 is easy to handle and that the design, controls and colours are good

Writing/ labeling This could neither be read nor understood as it is in a foreign language (Chinese)


RY 04

The shape is just ok because even when you put it on the table, it cannot roll over thanks to its rectangular shape. As for the design, I think it’s just fine as well but the size could have been a bit smaller so that I could pocket it easily Female,

Upper SEC, Rural

Yeah, I have seen some torches being sold in the shops. The only difference with this one is the fact that this one is rechargeable by electricity. Male, Upper SEC, Rural

This product is very new and different from other products as I have already said, buying batteries would be something in the past for me. Other things are that it seems to have a bright light, and this product is very strong Female, Lower

SEC, Urban


1. Portability

2. Light intensity

3. Ease of use

4. Shape

5. Multipurpose – a

torch and a lamp

6. Rechargeable

batteries

It has a clear bright light and also it is easy to carry around


It’s so bright that it can even be use it as a lamp in the house.

And it’s so different in the sense that you can use it not only

as a torch but also as a lamp in the house


The lights was bright enough and sufficient for all my needs

Female, Lower SEC, Urban The shape is just ok. It makes it stable if you put it on the

table

Female, Lower SEC, Urban It was very easy to use like any other torch that is available in

the market or at least those I have ever used. I used it only

when I was walking around at night maybe to see the

neighbours or when going to the toilet.



RY 04


1. Writings in a foreign

language

2. Colour

3. Electricity charging

I just dislike these words that are written on RY-04 as I cannot read and or understand them


. I can also change the colour to black because this one fades easily. Male, Upper SEC, Rural

There was only one thing I dislike about RY 04, the charging system. I disliked it because it is charged using electricity and where can you find that here. And for me to charge it I need to

pay for it and on top of that walk 10 Kms to just charge it


Test Product Evaluation Dislikes& Suggestions for Improvement

RY 04

Suggestions for improvement Replace the AC recharging option with the solar one Reduce the size of the device so that one can be able to put it in his/ her pocket when not in use Produce the device with a variety of colours so that the consumer is able to choose their favourite

The only thing I would change is the way it should be charged. I would like it to be charged by solar because electricity is expensive and it is found very far Male, Lower SEC, Urban

If it was changed to solar (the recharging from AC) I would definitely buy it and I think even other people would buy it for that reason. Female, Upper SEC, Rural



Understanding and ease of usage: All the respondents understood perfectly well how to use and recharge RY 04….”it was as easy as 1,2,3….”

Future usage: The respondents are not connected to electricity and using RY 04 would mean that they have to walk more than 10km to have it recharged and at a cost. This thus limits future prospects of using this product

Future usage settings are: living room, on the move, when going to the toilet at night or visiting neighbours, at the shop, bathroom

Relevance: Very relevant as one can easily move it within the household without it going off like a candle does when blown out by the wind and it has adequate lighting intensity. Also reduces the running costs (though does not eliminate)

It would be very relevant to my lifestyle as I can use it at night when I am going to the toilet and that when I don’t have a candle I can use it to light my house. I even used it yesterday when I went to see

the village headman at night and it helped me so much because I could see everything.

Male, Lower SEC, Urban I have used it since you left it the other day and I have seen the light fading away, though I did not

charge it since you left it with me. It helped me a lot in terms of lighting because I have had several inspections to my chicken, garden and pigs. Thanks for that. Female, Lower SEC, Urban

RY 04


The likelihood to purchase has been affected by the AC recharging option – respondents prefer solar recharging as it doesn’t have any running costs





products

RY 04





USD 2 – 3.9 Rechargeable batteries Light intensity

Willingness to purchase at the RRP USD 5 Rechargeable batteries Light intensity Portability


Low purchasing power (poverty)

RY 04

Majority of the respondents are willing to purchase RY 04 at the given RRP due to the following reasons: adequate light intensity, portability, rechargeable battery – translates to lower running costs

Those who cannot afford to buy at the given RRP at one go are very much willing to accept financing if available to offset part of purchase cost or alternatively be allowed to pay in 2 or 3 installments

Given a choice, the price would rather be higher but RY 04 to have a solar recharging option so that they can eliminate the running costs and reduce the hustle of having to walk very far to get electricity for recharging

SUMMARY OF PRODUCT EVALUATION


Insights

There are several features that a lighting device must have in order to be successful in this market. They include:

Adequate light intensity to light the whole room Little / No running cost – best achieved by recharging the battery by solar for the

running cost to be nil Multipurpose – ability to be used in more than one room and / or both as a lamp

and a torch Long battery life Lamp stand – very necessary for stability when placed on a surface Portability - largely determined by size, shape and design

As much as most of the respondents are willing to buy these lighting devices at the given RRP, their purchasing power is very low and very few can afford to buy them without financing especially the most preferred ones. This can be done through either:

– Financing them to offset part of the purchase cost (they are not willing to use AC recharging option thus no maintenance / running cost)

– Hire Purchase AC recharging option is unpopular amongst Zambian respondents and should be

avoided, the main reasons being:– They are not connected to electricity and thus have to travel very far (mostly

more than 10km) to get electricity– AC recharging option means they will be incurring running costs which is what

they are trying to overcome

Dec

reas

ing

impo

rtan

ce


Products Tested TM 41 RY04 HI 65 UR 83 KO13

Average hours product is used during test period (5 days)

10–15 hours 3 – 5 hours 6–8hours 10–15 hours 10–15 hours

Average hours product is used before subsequent recharge

6 - 8 hours 4 – 5 hours 5 – 7 hours 8 – 10 hours 8 - 10 hours

Average hours product is recharged daily

3 - 6 hours 3 – 5 hours 2 – 4 hours 4-6 hours 3–5 hours

General description of weather during recharge of test product

Mostly Clear

Occasionally Clear

Heavy cloud cover

Test productaverage lighting hours


Test productaverage lighting hours

Generally, the devices were used mostly in the evening hours for an

average of 2 – 3 hours and early in the morning for about an hour as

they prepare to start their day

For a majority of the devices to be fully charged, it required an

average time span of 3 – 5 hours. This was due to the fact that the

weather was mostly clear and thus there was adequate sunlight

UR 83 and KO 13 are the lamps which provided the longest hours of

bright lighting before the need for subsequent recharge


Test product Overall Evaluation

TM 41 was the preferred lighting device in all of the households where it was tested

Reasons given for preference included amongst others:– Light intensity– Solar recharge-ability – Ability to serve two different rooms simultaneously– Ease of use– Ability to power the radio

The only issues that arose were the connection cables which were deemed to be a bit short and the writings on the battery which were too small

Generally, the respondents had no functional / aesthetic problem with TM 41. It’s a product with very high potential in Zambia if priced right considering the target market purchasing power is weak. Alternatively financing could be made available

TM 41 is made for the poor like me because it would provide me with light in my house and would also be used for my radio. It could therefore serve two purposes, one for

lighting and another for my radio. I would also save ZMK 90,000 (USD 17.6)of which am spending on candles every month .


TM 41



There are so many torches currently in the Zambian market that resemble RY 04 that this product was not seen as new / different. The only unique thing about it is that it uses an AC rechargeable battery unlike the other torches

RY 04 was the least preferred of all the tested lighting devices. This is because it lacked the solar recharging option and can only be recharged using electricity

– Recharging using electricity means the respondents have to incur running costs since they are not connected to electricity

– However, it is still much cheaper to recharge using electricity than to buy the AAA batteries which are expensive and do not last for long

Its light intensity is only adequate as a torch, but not as a lamp since it’s not able to illuminate the whole room.

Overall, the RY 04 did not perform very well

Yes, I have seen torches similar to this being sold in the shops. There is only one difference with the other torches that I have seen and that is charging by electricity.


The only thing I would change is the way it should be charged. I would like it to be charged by solar because electricity is expensive and it is found very far away.


RY 04



HI 65 is a very familiar lighting device for the respondents as it resembles a task light that is currently in the market. The only difference is that HI 65 uses rechargeable batteries (rechargeable by both solar and electricity)

HI 65 was amongst the least preferred lighting devices reasons being: Low light intensity Inability to illuminate the whole room Low battery life

However, it was rated very well as a task light since its light intensity was only enough for tasks like studying which do not require the whole room to be illuminated

None of the respondents is willing to purchase HI 65 without the solar panel as they do not want to incur any running costs on AC based recharging

Majority of those who tested HI 65 are also not willing to pay more than what they had quoted before usage. This is mainly attributed to:

Comparison with the price of the task lamps already in the market HI 65 inadequate light intensity to light the whole room Low battery life

The good news is that the respondents are willing to buy HI 65 at the current RRP for HI 65 – this also falls within the range that majority of the respondents stated they are willing to pay

Due to their low purchasing power they are very much willing to accept financing if available to offset part of purchase cost

HI 65



In all of the households where UR 83 was tested, it was preferred over the other device tested in the same household.

Reasons given for preference were mostly functional and included amongst others:

– Solar recharge-ability – Multipurpose usage – both as a lamp and a torch– Light intensity– Portability

A few of the respondents however, had issues with the following: – Size - some respondents felt that if UR 83 was made bigger it would

produce more light than it is currently doing, and thus wanted it increased in size

– Control buttons - a number of respondents said they had a problem with the control buttons as they were hard to switch on / off

Value for money for this product was mainly driven by:– Solar recharge-ability – Multipurpose usage – both as a lamp and a torch– Relevance – seen as very relevant to the respondents needs

Overall, the respondents had no major dislikes about UR 83 and actually looked forward to acquiring it once it hit the market as it is deemed to have so much value for money

UR 83



KO13 was amongst the lighting devices that performed very well overall. The reasons behind its liking included:

Multi usage – ability to be used in different rooms at the same time Light intensity - its light intensity was adequate enough to illuminate the whole room Ability to switch off each lamp independently Recharging options – both solar and electricity

Both the functional and aesthetic features for KO 13 were rated very well except for the many connections and cables from the battery to the lamps with which the respondents initially had problems understanding with regards to connection

The price they quoted as “willing to pay” was influenced by their meager disposable income and so was the recharging option

For KO 13 respondents preferred to recharge the batteries using solar to avoid incurring running costs

As much as most of the respondents are willing to purchase KO 13 at the given RRP, their purchasing power is so low that they cannot afford to buy it. They are thus very willing to either:

– Accept financing if available to offset part of the purchase cost or – Be allowed to pay in 2 or more installments

None of the respondents was willing to purchase KO 13 without the solar panel as it would mean recharging using electricity, which would then translate into running costs and also they would have to travel very far to access electricity. With a solar panel, recharging would be free translating to no running costs

– However, due to financial limitations, they would buy the product without the solar panel, then purchase the panel later when capable to do that

Majority of the respondents thought KO 13 was worth its current RRP and had plans to save some money to purchase the product in the future

KO 13

RECCOMENDATIONS


General product preference overview

Amongst all the respondents that were interviewed, the following were the most preferred lighting devices:

- TM 41: Main drivers were the light intensity, solar recharge-ability and multi room usage

- UR 83: Main drivers were the light intensity, portability, solar recharge-ability and multi purpose usage – can be used both as a lamp and as a torch

- KO 13: Main drivers were the light intensity, solar recharge-ability and multi room usage

Amongst all the respondents that were interviewed, the following were the least preferred lighting devices:

- HI 65: Main barriers were the light intensity, battery life and size of the lamps / bulbs

- RY 04: Main barriers were the light intensity and lack of solar recharging option

TM 41 KO 13UR 83 RY 04HI 65

Decreasing preference


Product with the highest preference

TM 41

TM 41 had the highest preference in this market primarily due to the following reasons:

Lighting adequacy: The “big rounded lamp” proved the respondents perception before use right as they were very satisfied with the amount of light and brightness TM 41 gave. It was bright enough to light the whole room “including the dark corners”

Battery life: Considering the battery is used for two lamps and could go for more than 3days without the need for recharging, it is thus considered to be very strong. The weight of the battery (very heavy) also depicted that the battery is strong and can store a lot of energy

Ease of operation: Majority of the respondents had no trouble using TM 41as it was very easy to connect and to recharge

Uniqueness of product: TM 41 was considered very unique and different from the other products in the market and thus created a lot of excitement mainly because:

– Can be used in two different rooms simultaneously– Has a solar rechargeable battery which can be used to power the

radio – no running costs involved


Product with the lowest preference

There are currently so many RY 04 look-alike torches in the market

and hence the reason as to why it did not elicit any excitement from

the respondents as it was not considered new to the market.

Its general rating was basically not very good because it can only be

recharged using electricity, which means the respondents will still be

incurring running cost (yet this is what they are striving to avoid). In

addition, as they are not connected to electricity nor is anyone in the

vicinity, they have to travel very far (almost 10km) to recharge it –

This was the MAJOR BARRIER

Majority of the respondents also felt that its light coverage was

directional and therefore not able to illuminate the whole room.

Consequently, its light intensity can only be adequate if used as a

torch and not as a lamp

Battery life: The battery for RY 04 only last long for about 4 – 5hours

before recharging. If used as a torch only, it can last for up to a week

as its used only for moving around. However, if used as a lamp, it

can only last a maximum of 2days

RY 04


Barriers to use of preferred product

The TM41 was rates extremely positively, both on functional and

aesthetic characteristics. The only barriers that were raised to use the

product were:

The cables connecting the bulbs and the battery were considered too short

The writing that explained how to use the product was too small

A few suggestions were made on how to improve the functionality of the

device, these included:

Increasing the size of the solar panel

Making it possible to switch off the bulbs separately

Making it possible to use the solar panel to charge other household appliances


Motivations to use of preferred product

TM41 had the highest preference amongst all products tested. The device was

considered relevant in their life, a product with a good value for money that suited

their lighting needs. The main reasons were:

Light intensity, it is a lighting device that is bright enough to light the whole room

including the dark corners

Solar recharge-ability: This was deemed very important as it does away with the

running costs. Most respondents have low purchasing power and thus it’s a blessing to

them when the running costs are zero

Multi-room usage: This was a motivation because it

meant that one did not have to buy more than one

lighting device in order to light two rooms

The product was believed to be durable and easy

to operate.


Currency Conversion Rate

Zambia USD 1 = ZK 5,124

*Approximate, as of May 2009


Documents

LIGHTING DEVICES TEST RESULTS Zambia Results June 2009