Services Final (1)

8/10/2019 Services Final (1)

1/55

A COMPARITIVE SURVEY OF PRIVATE LABEL VS.

NATIONAL BRAND IN FOOD RETAIL - ITS EFFECT ONFOOTFALL, SALE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Research report submitted to ProfessorKingshuk Bhadury

SECTION B

MBA (201-201!"

S#$%&''e $)*

NAME ROLL NO. NAME ROLL NO.

Mahesh Pillai 04 Mihir Haryal 34

Ayush Hirwani 12 Dhaivat a!shi 3"

#ha$un Pandey 1% #hrey Dutt #harma 44

#amrat &aushi! 21 Purbasha Mandal 4"

Disha #hah 2% Atish 'hristopher 'li(ton )*

+erin ,eor$e 2" Rahul Pratap #in$h *3

1 | P a g e


2/55

AC+NOLEDEMENT

-e wish to e.press our $ratitude to Pro(/ &in$shu! hadhury (or his $uidance and support in

the duration o( this proect our respondents who included customers as well as mana$ers o(

various ood Retail stores who cooperated and e.tended their e((orts (or the success(ul

completion o( this endeavour/ -e also e.tend our than!s to the sta(( and (aculty o( #M# (or

providin$ the necessary in(rastructure (or our proect/

2 | P a g e


3/55

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

S.NO. TABLE EADIN PAE NO.

1 Demo$raphics o( Respondents

2 Most common way o( purchasin$ (ood products

3 denti(ication o( a Private abel rand

4 'ustomer5s Ac6uaintance with Private abel rands

) 'ustomer5s Ac6uaintance with 7ational rands

% &ey motivators (or purchasin$ a product

* 'omparison o( Pricin$ o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand

8 'omparison o( 9uality o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand

" 'omparison o( Pac!a$in$ o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand

10 Promotions as a motivator (or purchasin$ (ood products

3 | P a g e

S.NO. CAPTERS PAE NO.

1. S)/os&s 1

2.

2/1

2/2

I/'ro#'&o/

nroduction to ndian Retail ndustry

Details o( #tores

4

4

%

.

3/1

3/2

3/3

3/4

3/)

Reser3 Me'3oo4o5)

:opic

Research ;bectives

#i


4/55

11 mportance o( brand (or purchasin$ $roceries

12 mportance o( brand (or purchasin$ other (ood items

13 Purchase o( Private abel rand on recommendation o( others

14 Repeat Purchase o( Private abel rand1) re6uency o( visitin$ a retail store

1% Most (re6uently visited top 3 stores

1* Parameters (or selectin$ a store brand

18 -illin$ness o( customers to recommend their store brands to others

1" #pace occupancy o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand in a store

20 Percenta$e contribution o( Private abel rand and 7ational abel rand

towards Monthly sales21 Percenta$e contribution o( Private abel rand and 7ational abel randtowards Monthly pro(its

22 -ays o( promotin$ a Private abel rand

23 Pricin$ #trate$y (ollowed (or a Private abel rand

24 'omparison o( the discardin$ o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand

2) #pecial #ta(( (or sale o( Private abel rands

2% -ays o( Promotin$ loyalty amon$ customers purchasin$ Private abelrand

2* =((ect o( availability> non? availability o( Private abel rand on (oot(all

LIST OF FIURES

S.NO. FIURE EADIN PAE NO.

1 A$e o( the Respondents

2 ,ender o( the Respondents

3 ;ccupation o( the Respondents

4 ncome o( the Respondents

) Most common way o( purchasin$ (ood products

% denti(ication o( a Private abel rand

* 'ustomer5s Ac6uaintance with Private abel rands

8 'ustomer5s Ac6uaintance with 7ational rands

" &ey motivators (or purchasin$ a product

10 'omparison o( Pricin$ o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand

11 'omparison o( 9uality o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand

4 | P a g e


5/55

12 'omparison o( Pac!a$in$ o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand

13 Promotions as a motivator (or purchasin$ (ood products

14 mportance o( brand (or purchasin$ $roceries

1) mportance o( brand (or purchasin$ other (ood items

1% Purchase o( Private abel rand on recommendation o( others

1* Repeat Purchase o( Private abel rand

18 re6uency o( visitin$ a retail store

1" Most (re6uently visited top 3 stores

20 Parameters (or selectin$ a store brand

21 -illin$ness o( customers to recommend their store brands to others

22 #pace occupancy o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand in a store

23 Percenta$e contribution o( Private abel rand and 7ational abel randtowards Monthly sales

24 Percenta$e contribution o( Private abel rand and 7ational abel randtowards Monthly pro(its

2) -ays o( promotin$ a Private abel rand

2% Pricin$ #trate$y (ollowed (or a Private abel rand

2* 'omparison o( the discardin$ o( Private abel rand and 7ational rand

28 #pecial #ta(( (or sale o( Private abel rands

2" -ays o( Promotin$ loyalty amon$ customers purchasin$ Private abelrand

30 =((ect o( availability> non? availability o( Private abel rand on (oot(all

5 | P a g e


6/55

6 | P a g e


7/55

'hapter 1

#ynopsis

1 | P a g e


8/55

2 | P a g e


9/55

3 | P a g e


10/55

'hapter 2

ntroduction

1.1 I/'ro#'&o/ 'o I/&/ Re'&4 I/#s'r)*

:he ndian retail industry is the (i(th lar$est in the world/ 'omprisin$ o( or$ani


11/55

Accordin$ to a new study by $lobal mana$ement consultin$ (irm A: &earney says that in

ndia@ apparel@ alon$ with (ood and $rocery@ will lead or$anised retailin$ in ndia/ ndia has

one o( the lar$est numbers o( retail outlets in the world/ t (urther speci(ies that rural mar!et

is proected to dominate the retail industry landscape in ndia by 2012 with total mar!et share

o( above )0 per cent/ :hus@ accordin$ to industry e.perts@ the ne.t phase o( $rowth is

e.pected to come (rom rural mar!ets@ with rural ndia accountin$ (or almost hal( o( the

domestic retail mar!et/ n order to be truly success(ul@ retailers must advance (rom the

$eneric or store brand mindset o( the past to a new private label paradi$m/ Many retailers

have be$un to describe their private label brands as Gown brands because there is

reco$nition that these proprietary@ e.clusive o((erin$s are tools that represent momentous

power and potential (or the retail store/

1.2 Pr&7'e L$e4 Br/s*

#tore brands are products developed by a retailer and available (or sale only by that retailer@

some retailers may attempt to utilior at a better pro(it mar$in/ n addition@ private labelers have more control

over pricin$ and are able to advanta$eously display their own brands (or ma.imum impact/

or e.ample@ a $rocery store can 6uic!ly reduce the price o( its own P in order to meet or

beat a competitorBs price/ ;r the $rocery store can create a special point?o(?purchase

advertisin$ display and>or $ive its brand predominant shel( space in order to boost sales/

Ps are usually priced lower than comparable manu(acturersB brands and there(ore appeal to

bar$ain?conscious consumers/ As already mentioned@ retailers li!e Ps because o( their

potential to increase store loyalty@ chain pro(itability@ control over shel( space@ bar$ainin$

5 | P a g e


12/55

power over manu(acturers@ and so (orth/ Amon$ consumers@ one obvious reason (or their

popularity and $rowth is their price advanta$e over national brands/

1. N'&o/4 $r/s*

:he brand name o( a product that is distributed nationally under a brand name owned by the

producer or distributor@ as opposed to local brands and private label brands/

1.6 Prese/' Se/r&o*

Private labels or store brands are on escalatin$ ourney (or $rowth in last (ew years in ndian

mar!et/ :he $rowth o( private label brands is 6uite impressive in (ood and $rocery se$ment@in spite o( presence o( leadin$ national manu(acturers brands in most o( the cate$ories/

:hou$h@ initially Ps were considered as cheap alternatives and there(ore visible in copycat

and $eneric cate$ories@ today they are a part o( well?de(ined retail mi. strate$y@ are developed

in value innovators and premium cate$ories (or pro(it ma.imi


13/55

:ata ,roup/ -e also o((er a wide ran$e o( services and (acilities to our customers such as

e.press counters@ (ree wheat $rindin$@ live ba!ery@ (ree home delivery within a speci(ied

radius and (or a minimum value@ modern shoppin$ environment@ serviced by (riendly sta((

and shopper (riendly return policies@ trial rooms and alteration (acilities/

#tar a


14/55

trusted and well?established shoppin$ destination in Maharashtra@ ,uarat@ Andhra Pradesh

and &arnata!a/ D?Mart is now loo!in$ (orward to $rowin$ its stores across ndia/ D?MartBs

e.pansion be$an in 200*@ when stores were opened in Ahmedabad@ aroda@ Pune@ #an$li and

#olapur/ :oday D?Mart is established in *0 locations across Maharashtra@ ,uarat@ Andhra

Pradesh and &arnata!a/

At A#@ the main (ocus is in derivin$ e.cellence in customer service throu$h systemic

trainin$ and ri$or at wor!/ :he core values include simplicity and humility in their people and

stron$ly believe that inte$rity and merit is the only route to $rowth/

2.6 Re4&/e Fres3

Reliance resh is the convenience store (ormat which (orms part o( the retail business o(

Reliance ndustries o( ndia which is headed by Mu!esh Ambani/ Reliance plans to invest in

e.cess o( 7R2)0 billion in the ne.t 4 years in their retail division/ :he company already has

4)3 Reliance resh outlets across the country/ :hese stores sell (resh (ruits and ve$etables@

staples@ $roceries@ (resh uice@ bars and dairy products/

A typical Reliance resh store is appro.imately 3000I4000 s6uare (eet and caters to a

catchment area o( 2I3 !m/

Reliance resh@ Reliance Mart@ Reliance Di$ital@ Reliance :rends@ Reliance ootprint@

Reliance -ellness@ Reliance +ewels@ Reliance :imeout and Reliance #uper are various

(ormats that Reliance has rolled out/

2.! ore;


15/55

7atureBs as!et currently has 2* outlets across Mumbai@ Delhi@ Pune@ ,ur$aon@ Hyderabad

and en$aluru/

2.8Foo B9r

ood a


16/55

Waitrose

Noted the top supermar!et chain in C&/ =.clusively available at Hyper':/ 'ome and taste

the best o( teas@ co((ees@ uices@ ams and more/

2.? Re4&/e Mr'

Reliance Retail td/ is a subsidiary company o( Reliance ndustries/ ounded in 200% and

based in Mumbai@ it is the lar$est retailer in ndia in terms o( revenue/ ts retail outlets o((er

(oods@ $roceries@ apparel and (ootwear@ li(estyle and home improvement products@ electronic

$oods@ and (arm implements and inputs/ :he company5s outlets also provide ve$etables@ (ruits

and (lowers/ t (ocuses on consumer $oods@ consumer durables@ travel services@ ener$y@

entertainment and leisure@ and health and well?bein$ products@ as well as on educational

products and services/ t has a total o( 1@4%% stores in ndia with an area o( appro./ " million

s6uare (eet/

2.@ P#/e Ce/'r4

'entral was launched in May 2004 at an$alore and was developed on the concept o( $ivin$

customers an unobstructed@ pure shoppin$ e.perience by ensurin$ the best brands in the

ndian mar!et are available to the discernin$ ndian customer/

'entral o((ers everythin$ to the urban aspirational shopper/ ocated in the heart o( the city@

'entral believes its customers should not travel lon$ distances to reach us/ nstead@ we must

be present in popular customer destinations/

'entral houses over 300 brands across cate$ories such as apparel@ (ootwear and accessories

(or women@ men@ children and in(ants apart (rom a whole ran$e o( Music@ oo!s@ 'o((ee

#hops@ ood 'ourts@ #uper Mar!ets Eood a


17/55

addition@ 'entral houses 'entral #6uare@ a dedicated space (or product launches@ impromptu

events@ darin$ displays@ e.citin$ shows@ and art e.hibitions/

'hapter 3Research Methodolo$y

.1 TOPIC

:he research topic $iven to us (or this study is GA 'omparitive #urvey o( Private abel vs/

7ational rand in ood Retail ? ts e((ect on (oot(all@ sale and customer satis(action/ ,iven

the risin$ disposable incomes@ aspirations and increasin$ly consumerist mentality prevalent in

urban and semi?urban ndia this relevant topic $ave us the uni6ue opportunity to $ain

insi$hts into consumer attitudes and behaviour towards the Private and 7ational rands o(

(ood products throu$h retail stores/

.2 RESEARC OBECTIVES

PRIMARY RESEARC OBECTIVEJ

:he obective o( conductin$ primary research was to analy


18/55

3/ :o (ind out the di((erent (actors that a customer !eeps in mind while purchasin$ a (ood

product

4/ :o conduct a customer data survey toJ

a /:o analy


19/55

EhF D mart

EiF Pune 'entral

Data was collected (rom multiple outlets o( each company in 6uestion across the city o( Pune/

:o capture consumer data@ a sample si


20/55

a/ 20?30 2" 2%/4

b/ 31?40 41 3*/3

c/ 41?)0 32 2"/1

d/ Above )1 8 */3

2 e/er

a/ Male 10) ")/)b/ emale ) O4/)

O#'&o/

a/ #el( employed * %/4

b/ usinessmen 11 10/0

c/ ,overnment o((icial ? 0/0

d/ 'orporate 8* *"/1

e/ ;thers ) 4/)

6 I/o%e

a/ ess than 2)000 1* 1)/) b/ 2)001?)0000 3" 3)/)

c/ )0001? *)000 42 38/2

d/ *)000 and above 12 10/"

2%

3*

2"

*

A5e of '3e Reso/e/'s (&/ )ers"

20?30

31?40

41?)0

)1 and above

Figure 1: Age of the Respondents (in years

D&s#ss&o/* t is clear (rom :able 1 that 2%/4 o( the respondents belon$ed to the a$e $roup

o( 20?30 years/ 3*/3 o( the respondents belon$ed to the a$e $roup o( 31?40 years and thus

were the maority/ 2"/1 o( the respondents belon$ed to the a$e $roup 41?)0 years and only

*/3 were above )1 years o( a$e/

I/s&53's* T3&s s3o

14 | P a g e


21/55

95.5

4.5

-e/(er of '3e Res0o/(e/'s

Male

Female

Figure !: "ender of Respondents

D&s#ss&o/* t is evident (rom the :able 1 that ")/) o( the respondents were males whereas

only 4/) o( the respondents were (emales/

I/s&53's*

#el(=

mployed

usin

essman

,ove

rnme

nt;((icial

'orp

orate ;ther

0/010/020/030/040/0)0/0%0/0*0/080/0"0/0

%/4 10/0

0/0

*"/1

4/)

O#'&o/ of '3e Reso/e/'s

Figure #: $ccupation of the Respondents

D&s#ss&o/* :able 1indicates that maority o( the respondents@ that is@ *"/1 were wor!in$ as

corporate/ 10 o( the respondents were businessman and %/4 o( them were sel( employed/4/) o( the respondents were wor!in$ in other (ields/

15 | P a g e


22/55

I/s&53's*

ess than Rs 2)000 Rs 2)001?)0000 Rs )0001? *)000 Rs *)000 and above

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

15.5

35.538.2

10.9

I/o%e er %o/'3 of '3e Reso/e/'s

Figure %: &ncome of the Respondents

D&s#ss&o/* Maority o( the respondents i/e/ 38/2 had a monthly income in the brac!et o(

Rs )0000 I Rs *)000/ 3)/) o( the respondents had a monthly income in the brac!et o( Rs

2)000 I Rs )0000/ 1)/) o( the respondents earned a monthly income which was less thanRs 2)000 and about 10/" o( the respondents earned a monthly income which was $reater

than Rs *)000/

I/s&53's*

16 | P a g e


23/55

'hapter 4Data Analysis and nterpretation6.1 C#s'o%er A/4)s&s

#es'&o/ 1* 3' &s '3e %os' o%%o/ ) )o# #r3se foo ro#'s

O$;e'&7e* :o understand the pre(erred mode o( shoppin$ by customers (or (ood retail/ :his

6uestion helps us to (ind out the popularity o( a particular mode o( purchasin$ (ood products

since there has always been a debate whether retail stores will !ill the business o( &irana

stores or vice versa/ urthermore@ with our scope o( study@ it will help us determine howmany shoppers actually pre(er a retail store as a (irst pre(erence/

Table !: 'ost common ay of purchasing food products

S. No. Reso/ses No. of Reso/e/'s

(O#' of 110"

Pere/'5e

("

1/ &irana )* )2

2/ ;r$ani


24/55

I/s&53'* :his 6uestion helps us understand that &irana stores are still a maor mode o(

shoppin$ (or ndians due to several bene(icial (actors li!e ease o( shoppin$@ personal

e.perience and location/ oth retail and &iranas are an important mode o( shoppin$ (or

people and it proves that the popularity o( both mediums continue to e.ist/

#es'&o/ 2*Ie/'&f) '3e Pr&7'e L$e4 Br/

O$;e'&7e* :o analy


25/55

I/s&53'* 34 o( customers identi(ied Reliance Pure as a private label brand/ :his indicates

that customer5s understandin$ o( private label brands is not well de(ined/ :hus@ it shows that

customers are not well aware o( private label brands/ urthermore@ :ata as a brand is well

established and hence is !nown as a national brand/ :his (urther tells us that the private label

brands have low visibility in comparison to national brands/

#es'&o/ * o %/) of '3e fo44o&/5 Pr&7'e 4$e4 $r/s re )o# G#&/'e &'3

O$;e'&7e* :o (ind out i( customers are ac6uainted with Private abel rands/ :his 6uestion

also helps us understand the visibility o( a Private label brand in comparison to a 7ational

brand

Table %: .ustomer/s Ac0uainta nce ith *ri+ate ,abel Brands

S. No. Reso/ses No. of Reso/ses Pere/'5e

("

1/ :asty :reat )) 30/1

2/ Reliance Nalue %2 33/"

3/ #tar a


26/55

I/s&53'* :he in(erence $athered here is that customer5s are not well aware o( private label

brands that e.ist in the mar!et/ Also@ the visibility that these brands enoy is very less

compared to national brands/ :hus@ customers don5t have a $ood understandin$ o( these

brands/

#es'&o/ 6* o %/) of '3e fo44o&/5 N'&o/4 $r/s re )o# G#&/'e &'3

O$;e'&7e* :o understand the in(luence that 7ational rands has on customers/ :hus@ the

popularity o( 7ational rands can be assessed with respect to the ac6uaintance that customers

have with national brands/

Table ): .ustomer/s Ac0uaintance ith 2ational Brands

S. No. Reso/ses No. of

Reso/e/'s

(O#' of 110"

Pere/'5e

("

1/ Annapurna )% )0/"

2/ Aashirvaad 8) **/3

3/ Pillsburry *3 %%/4

4/ #ha!ti ho$ *8 *0/"

'nna(!rna

'as)ir*

aa+

Pills,

!rry

")a&ti#)

-g

0.0

10.020.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

50.9

77.3

66.470.9

C#s'o%erHs 21G#2&/'2/1e E&'3 N2'&o/24 Br2/(s

N2'&o/24 Br2/(s

Per1e/'25e of res0o/(e/'s

20 | P a g e


27/55

Figure 3: .ustomer/s Ac0uaintance ith 2ational Brand

D&s#ss&o/* :able ) shows that )0/" o( the respondents are ac6uainted with the brand

Annapurna/ **/3 o( the respondents are aware o( the brand Aashirvaad/ %%/4 o( the

respondents are aware o( the brand Pillsbury while only *0/" o( the respondents are aware

o( the brand #ha!ti bho$/

I/s&53'* t can be in(erred (rom the above that customers are well aware o( 7ational brands

since they enoy a hi$h visibility due to promotional campai$ns@ etc/ :hus@ customers have a

$ood understandin$ o( the brands present/

#es'&o/ !* I/&'e '3e &%or'/e of '3e r%e'ers '3' %o'&7'es )o# 'o $#)

ro#' (1- Les' I%or'/' / ! : E're%e4) I%or'/'".

O$;e'&7e* :o identi(y the importance o( various (actors that motivates a person to buy aproduct/

Table -: Key moti+ators for purchasing a product

#/

7o/

actors Nery

mportant

E)F

mportant

E4F

7ot so

important

E3F

7eutral

E2F

7ot

important

E1F

:otal

1/ Price *0 3) 3 0 2 110

2/ Pac!a$in$ 48 30 28 2 2 110

3/ 9uality )* 40 8 ) 0 1104/ rand 42 44 1* * 0 110

)/ =ase o(

Availability

2) 3) 4% 1 3 110

Price

Pac!

a$in$

=ase

o(A

vaila

bility

0.0

10.020.030.040.050.060.070.0

63.651.8

43.6 38.222.7

F'ors of '3e %os' &%or'/e 3&4e #r3s&/5 ro#'

Vr&o#s F'ors

Pere/'5e of eo4e

Figure 4: &mportance of *rice

D&s#ss&o/* :able % shows that %3/% o( the respondents have $iven price the 1st

ran!in$/)1/8 o( the respondents have chosen 9uality to be the most important (actor/ Pac!a$in$

21 | P a g e


28/55

has been chosen as the most important (actor by 43/% o( the respondents/ rand and =ase o(

availability were chosen by 38/2 and 22/* o( the respondents as the most important (actor

respectively/

I/s&53'* t is evident that Price@ 9uality and Pac!a$in$ are the top 3 decisive (actors while

purchasin$ a product/

#es'&o/ 8* Do )o# '3&/= '3ere &s /) &ffere/e &/ '3e r&&/5 of N'&o/4 Br/ /

Pr&7'e L$e4 Br/

O$;e'&7e* :o (ind out i( customers perceive Private label rands and 7ational rands to

have di((erent pricin$

Table : .omparison of *ricing of *ri+ate ,abel Brand and 2ational Brand


Reso/e/'s(O#' of 110"

Pere/'5e

("

1/ es 88 80

2/ 7o 22 22

7umber o( Respondents Percenta$e

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

88

80

22

20

Co%r&so/ of Pr&7'e L$e4 Br/ / N'&o/4 Br/

-

/es

Figure 15: .omparison of *ricing of *ri+ate ,abel Brand and 2ational Brand

22 | P a g e


29/55

D&s#ss&o/* rom the chart it is evident that 80 o( the respondents are aware o( the pricin$

di((erences between 7ational rands and Private abel rands/

I/s&53'* :he awareness respondents have with re$ards to the pricin$ advanta$e that is present

(or consumers to ta!e when purchasin$ Private abel rands/ -hether or not the consumersta!e this opportunity to save on their spendin$ will be discovered (urther down the report/

#es'&o/ >* Do )o# o/s&er Pr&7'e 4$e4 $r/s 'o $e of oorer G#4&') &/ o%r&so/

'o N'&o/4 Br/s

O$;e'&7e* :o (ind out the $eneral perception o( customers with respect to 6uality towards

the Private labels as compared to 7ational brands/

Table 3: .omparison of 6uality of *ri+ate ,abel Brand and 2ational Brand

S. No. Reso/ses No. of Reso/e/'s

(O#' of 110"

Pere/'5e

("

1/ es %* %1/8

2/ 7o 43 38/2

38.2

61.8

Co%02r&so/ of #24&') of Pr&72'e L2$e4 Br2/( 2/( N2'&o/24 Br2/(

/es

-

23 | P a g e


30/55

Figure 11: .omparison of 6uality of *ri+ate ,abel Brand and 2ational Brand

D&s#ss&o/* Mostpeople@ %1/8 percent o( customers consider Private labels to be o( poorer

6uality and 38/2 consider Private labels as compared to 7ational brands/

I/s&53'* Most o( the respondents (eel that Private labels are in the stores because they want to$ive competition to the 7ational brands and want to win the consumer share based on the low

pricin$/

#es'&o/ ?*Are 7ational abel rands better pac!a$ed than Private abel rands

O$;e'&7e* :his 6uestion is essential to understand the customers perception about the

pac!a$in$ o( private label brands versus national label brands@ which in turns portraits theperception that consumer have towards the loo! and (eel o( various brands in the mar!et/ :his

6uestion (urther helps us understand consumers purchase pattern and their pre(erences

towards various brands in the mar!et/

Table 9: Are National Label Brands better packaged than Private Label Brands?

S. No. Reso/ses No. of Reso/e/'s (O#' of 110" Pere/'5e ("

1/ es *% %"

2/ 7o 34 31

69%

31%

'&o/4 L$e4 Br/s $e''er = 5 e '3/ Pr&7'e L$e4 Br

/es -

24 | P a g e


31/55

Figre !: Are National Label Brands better packaged than Private Label Brands?

D&s#ss&o/*Most o( the respondents@ %"@ thin! that 7ational brands are better pac!a$ed as

compared to Private brands/

I/s&53's*Respondents thin! that as Private brands score more on the (actor o( low prices and

7ational brands opt (or attractive pac!a$in$ to sell in bul!/ Also consumer pre(er 7ational

abel rands as their pac!a$in$ are better@ thereby bein$ perceived as hi$her in 6uality than

private labels bein$ o((ered by retailers/

#es'&o/ @*-ould it motivate you to buy a product i( it had a promotional o((er associated

with it

O$;e'&7e*:his 6uestion is essential to understand the customers5 perception and attraction

towards buyin$ a product i( it had a promotional o((er associated with it/ :hrou$h this

6uestion@ consumer pre(erence was ud$ed and understood in turns o( how much promotions

e((ect the purchasin$ o( products and loyalty towards a particular store and its o((ers/

Table "#: Wold it $otivate yo to by a prodct i% it had a pro$otional o%%er associated &ith it?

S. No. Reso/ses No. of Reso/e/'s (O#' of 110" Pere/'5e ("

1/ es "1 83

2/ 7o 1" 1*

83%

17%

' &7'e )o# 'o $#) ro#' & f &' 3 ro%o'&o/4 offer sso&

/es -

25 | P a g e


32/55

Figre 9: Wold it $otivate yo to by a prodct i% it had a pro$otional o%%er associated &ith it?

D&s#ss&o/*Most o( the respondents@ 83@ thin! that they would be motivated to buy a

product i( it had a promotional o((er associated with it/

I/s&53's*Respondents would pre(er to purchase a product i( a promotional o((er is attached

to it@ thereby su$$estin$ that a bundled product or a discount associated with the product or

even a special o((er product would attract consumers more than a non?promotional product in

a retail store/ Hence@ companies need to !eep this strate$y in mind while tryin$ to increase

sales/

#es'&o/ 10* Does '3e $r/ %''er 'o )o# 3e/ #r3s&/5 foo ro#'s

O$;e'&7e* :o understand the importance that a brand when purchasin$ a (ood product/

Table 11: &mportance of brand for purchasing food products


Reso/e/'s

(O#' of 110"

Pere/'5e

("

1/ es %2 )%/3%

2/ 7o 48 4%/%3

26 | P a g e


33/55


34/55

(O#' of 110"

1/ es 38 3)

2/ 7o *2 %)

/es -

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

35

65

#r132se 2 Pr&72'e L2$e4 $r2/( o/ re1o%%e/(2'&o/ o

Figure 11: .onsumers purch asing a *ri+ate ,abel brand on recommendation of

others7

D&s#ss&o/* ;ut o( 110 respondents only 3) o( the respondents buy P5s on

recommendation o( others@ the rest o( %) respondents are not a((ected by recommendation/

I/s&53's* t is evident (rom the above data that maority o( consumers do not buy private

label brands even on recommendation by others/ t shows that customers are not a((ected by

what others say/

#es'&o/ 12* Are )o# ree' #s'o%er of Pr&7'e L$e4 Br/

O$;e'&7e* :o understand the level o( customer satis(action that people have (rom Private

abel rands

Table 1%: Repeat *urchase of *ri+ate ,abel Brand


Reso/e/'s(O#' of 110"

Pere/'5e

("

28 | P a g e


35/55

1/ es 42 38/2

2/ 7o %8 %1/8

38.2

61.8

Are )o# 2 re0e2' 1#s'o%er of 2 Pr&72'e L2$e4 Br2/(F

/es

-

Figure 1: Repeat *urchase of *ri+ate ,abel Brand

D&s#ss&o/* t can be seen (rom :able 14 that maority o( the customers i/e/ %1/8 are not

repeat buyers o( a Private rand/ -hile 38/2 o( the customers are repeat buyers o( the same

I/s&53'* t can be $athered that customers are not repeat purchasers o( a Private rand/ :his

has come into li$ht since purchase o( Private abel rand is in(luenced by income to a

certain e.tent and hence only a particular section o( the people tend to have a pre(erence (or

private label brands/

#es'&o/ 1* o freG#e/'4) o )o# 7&s&' %oer/ re'&4 3&/

O$;e'&7e* :o assess the (oot(all o( a modern (ood retail chains/ :his helps us understand the

(re6uency with which customers tend to visit a particular retail chain/

Table 1%: Fre0uency of +isit to a modern retail store

S. No. Pr%e'ers Reso/ses (O#' of

110"

Pere/'5e ("

1. T&e ee= 4 4

29 | P a g e


36/55


37/55

O$;e'&7e* :o (ind out the popularity and (amiliarity o( retail stores amon$st respondents and

thus (ind out the brand visibility/

Table 1-: 'ost fre0uently +isited top # stores

S. No. Reso/ses Reso/ses 5&7e/(

O#' of 0"

Pere/'5e

("1/ Hypercity )2 1)/8

2/ Reliance Mart 4) 13/%

3/ Reliance resh ** 23/3

4/ ood a


38/55

#es'&o/ 1!* o o )o# se4e' )o#r s'ore $r/

O$;e'&7e* :o (ind out the importance o( a parameter that leads to selection o( a store brand

Table 1: *arameters for selecting a store brand


Reso/e/'s

(O#' of 110"

Pere/'5e

("

1/ Price 4% 41/8

2/ 9uality 20 18/2

3/ #tore ocation 2* 24/)

4/ rand 1* 1)/)

Price

#tore4oc

ation

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pr%e'ers for se4e'&/5 s'ore $r/

7o/ o( respondents

o( Respondents

Pr%e'ers

Reso/ses

Figure !5: *arameters for selecting a store brand

D&s#ss&o/J :able 1* shows that 41/8 o( the respondents (eel that Price is the most

important (actor in the selection o( a (ood retail store to buy products/ urthermore@ 24/) o(

the respondents (eel that #tore ocation is the most important (actor in the selection o( a storebrand/ 18/2 and 1)/) o( the respondents chose 9uality and rand to be the most

important parameter respectively/

I/s&53'* :his helps us understand the basic reason as to why customers $o to a particular

store brand/ :he reasons mentioned here can actually help stores $o (or better (acilities and

thus price their products in accordance to the tar$et $roup/

32 | P a g e


39/55

#es'&o/ 18* o#4 )o# reo%%e/ )o#r s'ore $r/ 'o o'3ers

O$;e'&7e* Recommendation is seen as a si$n o( customer satis(action/ Hence@

recommendin$ a brand to other people indicates whether a customer is satis(ied or not

Table 13: Brand recommendation to others

S.No. Reso/se No. of

Reso/e/'s

(O#' of 110"

Pere/'5e

("

1/ es %2 )%/3%

2/ 7o 48 43/%3

Figure !1: Brand recommendation to others

D&s#ss&o/* :his analysis shows that maority o( respondents showed interest re$ardin$

recommendin$ their store brands to (riends and nei$hbours while 43/%% o( the customers

were not satis(ied with 6uality aspect and denied to recommend the same/ :hus maority o(

the store brand customers are satis(ied with the product/

I/s&53'* :his in(erence is help(ul in understandin$ the level o( customer satis(action which a

customer enoys/ #ince only a(ter bein$ satis(ied with a particular product@ he will

recommend it to others/ urthermore@ this is alos a measure o( the loyalty o( a particular

customer with respect to the store brand/

33 | P a g e


40/55


41/55

:hey continue to do this by occupyin$ maority o( the shel( space in the stores throu$h visual

merchandisin$/

2. 3' &s '3e ere/'5e (" o/'r&$#'&o/ of '3e fo44o&/5 'o )o#r %o/'34) s4es -

Pr&7'e L$e4 Br/s 7s. N'&o/4 Le7e4 Br/s

O$;e'&7eJ :he obective o( this 6uestion was to assess the share o( private label brands vs/

national brands in terms o( revenues $enerated (or the retailer/ urther@ it would also throw a

li$ht on the mar!et?share o( 7ational brands vs/ Private label brands/

Table !5: *ercentage of sales of 2ational Brands +s7 *ri+ate ,abel Brands

S. No. Re'&4er of N'&o/4 Br/s of Pr&7'e L$e4Br/s

1/ Reliance Mart 8) 1)

2/ Reliance resh 80 20

3/ ood a


42/55

I/s&53'*Respondents su$$ested that national brands dominate the (ood retail business in

ndia with close to "0 o( the mar!et share and private labels only $enerate 10 o( the

revenues in the (ood retail se$ment/

. 3' &s '3e o/'r&$#'&o/ of '3e fo44o&/5 'o )o#r %o/'34) rof&'s - Pr&7'e L$e4

Br/s or N'&o/4 Le7e4 Br/s

O$;e'&7e*:o understand the percenta$e contribution o( Private abel rands or 7ational

evel rands to their respective monthly pro(its/

Table !5: *ercentage contribution of 2ational Brands +s7 *ri+ate ,abel Brands to

monthly profits

S. No. S'ores o/'r&$#'&o/ $) Pr&7'e

L$e4 Br/s

o/'r&$#'&o/ $)

N'&o/4 Br/s1. Foo B9r @ 81

2. Ce/'r4 2? >2

. N'#re. )er&') 2 8?

?. A#3/ 0 >0

@. D %r' 66 !8

AVERAE !.6 86.!

F--+

#a$aar

.at!re7s,a

s&et

"tar

#a$aar

:y(ercity

5mart

0102030405060708090

6172

83

52 5566 68 70

56

% -ntri,!ti-n t- M-nt)ly Pr-;ts

P*t. a,el #ran+s ati-nal e*el #ran+s

Figure !5: *ercentage contribution of 2ational Brands +s7 *ri+ate ,abel Brands to

monthly profits

D&s#ss&o/* -e see that on an avera$e@ the percenta$e contribution to the monthly pro(its is

3) (or Private rands and %) (or 7ational rands/

36 | P a g e


43/55

I/s&53'* -e in(er that the retailers usin$ a hi$her percenta$e o( Private rands are more

success(ul and stand hi$her in terms o( overall ran!in$s/ :hese retailers are namely Reliance

mart@ #tar a


44/55

!. 3' =&/ of r&&/5 s'r'e5) o )o# fo44o for PLBs (M#4'&4e o'&o/s 44oe"

O$;e'&7e*:o studyPricin$ strate$y opted by the retail (ood stores to promote their own

brands/

Table ): *ricing 8 trategy of *,Bs

Parameters

7o/ o( responses Eout

o( 10F Percenta$e

Discount and allowance pricin$ 8 80

#e$mented pricin$ % %0

Psycholo$ical pricin$ 4 40

Promotional pricin$ * *0

,eo$raphical pricin$ * *0

Discount and allowance pricin$ Psycholo$ical pricin$ ,eo$raphical pricin$

0

20

40

60

80

100

80

60

40

70 70

Pr&&/5 S'r'e5) of PLBs

Pr&&/5 S'r'e5&es

Pere/'5e

Figure ): Distribution of pricing strategy opted by the Retailers

D&s#ss&o/* Most o( the stores use Discounts and promotional strate$ies to attract customers

as they are bene(icial to stores as well as customers/ #ome stores also use psycholo$ical

pricin$/

38 | P a g e


45/55


46/55

I/s&53'*irst time customers are more open to try out and oyal 'ustomers contribute more

towards sales/

>. 3&3 4$e4 o )o# 37e 'o &sr %ore ' '3e e/ of '3e %o/'3

O$;e'&7e* :he obective was to use another parameter to assess the sale o( Ps and 7s

respectively/

Table : .ompa rison of 2Bs 9s *,Bs in term s of o' discard


Reso/e/'s

(O#' of 10"

Pere/'5e

("

1/ Ps 4 40

2/ 7s % %0

40%

60%

Product Discarded at EoM

P#s

#s

Figure : .omparison of 2Bs 9s *,Bs in terms of o' discard

40 | P a g e


47/55


48/55

Special Sales Force Employed

/es

-

Figure 3: 8pecial sales force to promote *,Bs

D&s#ss&o/* #ince 100 o( the surveyed retailers do not employ a special sales (orce@ it $oes

on to say that no direct attempt is made at the salesperson5s end to sell a P/

I/s&53'* KPrice5@ LProduct5@ LPac!a$in$5@ LPlace5 and not necessarily LPeople5 are used to sell

Ps/

#es'&o/ 0@* How do you promote loyalty amon$ customers purchasin$ P5s

O$;e'&7e* :o analy


49/55

2/ 9uality 3 30

3/ Pac!a$in$ 1 10

10

60

30

Total

Pac&aging

Pricing

Figure 4: *romoting loyalty to customers

D&s#ss&o/* t is observed that % out o( 10 retailers a$ree that pricin$ is the most important

(actor (or promotin$ loyalty amon$ customers@ 3 said that 6uality is most important whereas

1 said that they use pac!a$in$ to attract customers/

I/s&53'* :his analysis showsthat the maor (actor (or attractin$ and promotin$ loyalty amon$

customers is pricin$/ :he second (actor is 6uality and the third is pac!a$in$/ Pac!a$in$ does

not play much importance where P5s are concerned and customers see the price to buy the

P5s/

#es'&o/ 10* Does '3e 7&4$&4&')J/o/-7&4$&4&') of Pr&7'e 4$e4 Br/s ffe' )o#r

foo'f44

O$;e'&7e* :o see whether the availability>non?availability o( Private label rands a((ect the

(oot(all in a store or customers are not a((ected by the availability>non?availability o( P5s/

43 | P a g e


50/55

Table 15: Does the a+ailability;non


51/55


52/55

Respondents thin! that as Private brands score more on the (actor o( low prices and

7ational brands opt (or attractive pac!a$in$ to sell in bul!/ Also consumer pre(er

7ational abel rands as their pac!a$in$ are better@ thereby bein$ perceived as hi$her

in 6uality than private labels bein$ o((ered by retailers/ Respondents would pre(er to purchase a product i( a promotional o((er is attached to

it@ thereby su$$estin$ that a bundled product or a discount associated with the product

or even a special o((er product would attract consumers more than a non?promotional

product in a retail store/ Hence@ companies need to !eep this strate$y in mind while

tryin$ to increase sales/

t can be seen that customers these days are well aware about brands/ Hence@ private

labels should be $iven more visibility so that customers start viewin$ it as a brand/

t is evident (rom the above data that maority o( consumers do not buy private labelbrands even on recommendation by others/ t shows that customers are not a((ected by

what others say/

t can be $athered that customers are not repeat purchasers o( a Private rand/ :his

has come into li$ht since purchase o( Private abel rand is in(luenced by income to

a certain e.tent and hence only a particular section o( the people tend to have a

pre(erence (or private label brands/

;( the respondents covered@ most pre(er $oods which can be consumed (aster/

Retailers can thus be advised to !eep more direct consumables on their shelves/ :he insi$ht $ained (rom this 6uestion was that customers rate ood a


53/55

Respondents su$$ested that national brands dominate the (ood retail business in ndia

with close to "0 o( the mar!et share and private labels only $enerate 10 o( the

revenues in the (ood retail se$ment/

-e in(er that the retailers usin$ a hi$her percenta$e o( Private rands are more

success(ul and stand hi$her in terms o( overall ran!in$s/ :hese retailers are namely

Reliance mart@ #tar a


54/55

COC!"S#OS $D RECOMMED$T#OS

n this study@ we e.amined how ndian customers perceive Ps in (ood and $rocery

product cate$ories in comparison to national label brands/

'ustomer loyalty has become a very (ic!le term in today5s hi$hly competitive and

volatile mar!et/ 'ustomers may pre(er one brand over another or mi$ht be loyal

towards none o( the brands as lon$ as they (eel that their e.pectations are bein$

satis(ied/

rom the study it is concluded that customers pre(er national brands over private label

brands due to better promotion@ pac!a$in$@ 6uality and better brand ima$e/

T3&s &s &/ 4&/e &'3 o#r 3)o'3es&s 1

t is also evident (rom the study that national brands satis(y the customers more than

P5s/ it is clear (rom the (oot(all in the store whether there is availability or not/

=ven in terms o( parameters o( customer satis(action we conclude that national brands

have an upper handT3&s ro7es o#r 3)o'3es&s 2

Retailers also need to understand that ran$e and 6uality o( products o((ered does play

a role amon$ value (or money se$ment o( customer as hi$h 6uality is $enerally

perceived to be synonymous with durability by customers/ ndian customers are

value?conscious and thou$h increased awareness and e.posure has made them !een

on !eepin$ pace with chan$in$ trends in society and (ashion but they are still more

interested in products which (it them better alon$ with $ivin$ them uni6ue reco$nition

with com(ort and 6uality at a((ordable prices/ indin$s related to (actors considered to

be important by customers product cate$ories in purchasin$ Ps can help retailers in

ta!in$ steps improve their private label products alon$ these parameters/

:hus@ as recommendation we would li!e to su$$est that i( private label manu(acturers can

consistently provide value to customers on (actors rated hi$h by customers and even i( it is

low on status symbol@ there is a hi$h possibility (or them to establish these brands as

acceptable in the minds o( customers and to improve customers5 perception re$ardin$ the

same/ :hou$h this perception may not be as hi$h as a branded product enoys but it could still

become hi$h enou$h (or retailers to increase the sales o( these brands and thereby raise theirpro(it mar$in considerably/

48 | P a g e


55/55

Documents

Services Final (1)