8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

1/17

METAL BOX INDIA

LIMITED(MBIL)KITCHENETTECASE

Prach

i AgarwalPrajjalita Borthakur

Pranshu Priyadarshi

Pritam Saha

Pritam MannaPriyanka Salampuriya

Prosenjit Roy

Pushpak Gupta

Raja Chowdhury

G

R

O

U

P

4

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

2/17

BACKGROUND

In the year 1978-79, MBIL (Metal Box India Lim ited) launched

their new kitchenette product l ine in India.

Kitchenette would give the consumers the sto rage of only

solid food products such as (Cereals, sugar, dal, spices etc.)

& keep the k itchen Healthy, Hygienic & Clean.

The scheme of Ki tchenette failed miserably in India.

It was just around the Introduction phase of the PLC curve in

the Western & Northern India, whereas the sales were very

poor in Southern, Eastern & Central part of India- in the major

urban centers.

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

3/17

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

4/17

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

5/17

WEAKNESS

Consumer Buying Behavior was

different in India (where the product

failed) in comparison to UK & Europe

(where the product was a success)

Income earning, Spending habits &

Lifestyle of the consumers are totally

different in the respective countries

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

6/17

OPPORTUNITY

No competitors

New market in India

Increasing number of workingwomen in India

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

7/17

THREATSAvailability of Plastic containers

Traditional Storage of eatable items in jars made of

clay

Conservative mind-set that food items can turn

poisonous, if kept in Tin Containers due to the

harmful elements used in making them

Jars made up of glass can also be used as a

container

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

8/17

Failure of Kitchenette in most of the

areas in India

Limited success in the Introduction

stage in few of the areas Western

& Northern

SYMPTOMS

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

9/17

PROBLEM FORMULATION

No research prior to marketing in India

Large difference in literacy level in India

DMU differs from Europe

Purchasing attitude

People not used to TIN containers

Lack of awareness

Climatic conditions

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

10/17

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

DMU differs from Europe

Purchasing attitude

People not used to TIN containers

Lack of awareness

Climatic conditions

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

11/17

UK INDIA

High literacy and independence level Low literacy and independence level

Decision taken by ladies Decision taken by husbands

Different climatic conditions Humid climate

Open kitchen Closed kitchen

Showcasing preferred Economical logic of re-usage pattern

DIFFERENCES IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC

CONDITIONS

UK INDIA

Initiator Ladies (housewives) Ladies (mother-in-law)

Influencer Neighbor ladies

Decider Ladies Husband

Buyer Wives/husbands Husbands

User Ladies ladies

CONSUMER BUYING ROLES

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

12/17

For UK- Dissonance

reduction

For India- Habitual

BUYING BEHAVIOR

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

13/17

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

14/17

OBJECTIVES

To know about the Culture and Sub- Cul ture prevailing in

India

To create effective awareness among the Consumers

regarding the usefulness of the product

To analyse the perception of the Consumers regarding a

particular product

To understand the Consumer Buying Behaviour

To unders tand the REAL FACT that the Income, Number

of Educated people & Their Lifestyles are different in India

in comparison to UK & Europe

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

15/17

LIMITATIONS

No Market Survey was conducted before

launching the product

Launched the product with an ASSUMPTION OFSUCCESS, as because the product was a success

in UK & Europe

Socio- cultural differences

Lack of concrete data regarding the Income &

Buying Habits of the consumers

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

16/17

CONCLUSION

Failure of the scheme KITCHENETTE in

India

Failure in understanding the likes, dislikes &

buying pattern of consumers resulted in the

poor sales

Launching a product on an ASSUMPTION

that, its because it has done well in a

country might do well too in other countries

8/7/2019 KITCHENETTE

17/17