• Insecticides (India) Private Limited was incorporated by Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and his family in December 1996.
• Later in October 2001, it was converted into public limited company.
• Insecticides (India) Limited (IIL) did not carry any business from December 1996 till October 2001 and started commercial production in the March 2002
• Listed company in both BSE &NSE
Global & Indian Consumption
Source: http://www.business-standard.com/pdf/rallis%20india-initiating%20coverage%20-%2020.07.09.pdf
Source: http://www.business-standard.com/pdf/rallis%20india-initiating%20coverage%20-%2020.07.09.pdf
Cost comparison
Manual weeding/ha
Cost Herbicide Usage +Hand weeding
Cost
First weeding 25 DAP
15x 80 = 1200 Any one of pre-emergence herbicide
2x325=650
Second weeding 40 DAP
10 x 80 = 800 Hand weeding 10x80=800
Total= 2000 1450
Gaining more Importance …
• Nearly 35% Average yield loss due to weeds.
• Labor shortage (6.8 %)
• Use of Herbicide saves cost
• Demand increases year by year
Objectives
• To study the awareness of farmers about the product HIJACK
• To study the farmers perception on product HIJACK
• To find the Expectations of farmers
• Sampling design : Purposive sampling
• Size : 30 respondents
• Area : Gobisettipalayam
• Data collection tool: Questionnaire
Tools of analysis
Percentage analysis
• In mathematics, a percentage is a way of expressing a number
as a fraction of 100 (per cent meaning "per hundred")
Classification based on Age
Sl. NoAge(in years)
No of farmers
Percentage
1. <30 4 13.33
2. 31 – 40 11 36.67
3. 41 - 50 13 43.33
4. > 50 2 6.67
Total = 30 100
Classification based on Education
SI. No Educational level
No of farmers
Percentage
1. School 26 86.67
2. Graduate 2 6.67
3. Post graduate
- 0
4. Illiterate 2 6.67
Total = 30 100
Classification based on Occupation
SI. No Occupation No of farmers
Percentage
1. Agriculture only
28 93.3
2. Agriculture + business
2 6.7
Total = 30 100
Classification based on Farming Experience
SI. No Farming experience
No of farmers
percentage
1. <10 3 10
2. 11-20 11 36.67
3. 21-30 14 46.67
4. >30 2 6.67
Total = 30 100
Classification based on Land holding
Sl. No Size of Land
Holding (in ac)
Number of
Farmers
Percentage
1. < 2.5 21 70.00
2. 2.51 – 5.0
7 23.33
3. 5.01 – 10
2 6.67
Total = 30 100
Mode of purchase
Sl. No Mode of
Purchase
Number of
Farmers
Percentage
1. Cash 22 73.33
2. credit
2 6.67
3. Cash +Credit
6 20.00
Total= 30 100
Awareness about the product HIJACK among Farmers
Awareness about HIJACK
SI.NO Awareness No of Farmers Percentage
1. Aware 11 36.67
2. Not Aware 19 63.33
Total= 30 100
Source of Information
SI. No Source of Information Number of Farmers
Percentage
1. Dealers 8 72.72
2. Peer group --- 0
3. Company Rep/Field Demo 2 18.18
4. Media/Advertisements 1 9.09
Total = 11 100
Users of product HIJACK
SI. No Usage Number of Farmers
Percentage
1. Users 7 23.33
2. Non-Users 23 76.67
Total = 30 100
Product identification By Farmers
SI. No Mode of identification Number of Farmers Percentage
1. Packaging material 2 28.57
2. Company Name -- 0
3. Trade Name 5 71.43
Total = 7 100
RANK BASED QUOTIENT
• Formula
RBQ =
• Fi = Frequency of the farmers for the ith rank of the attribute
• N = Number of farmers contacted for factor identification
• n = The maximum number of ranks given for various factors.
• i = Rank of the attributes
• The factors with highest RBQ score will be ranked first and
hence considered the most important factor by the farmers.
(Fi) ×(n+1-i)
N × n×100∑
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Dealers 0.71 0.25 - - - - - - - 96.00
Comp.Rep.guidance
- 0.25 0.55 - - - - - - 80.00
Good quality
- - - 0.095
- - - - - 0.90
Advertisement
0.28 0.38 0.13 - - - - - - 79.00
Friends guidance
- - - - 0.079 - - - - 0.79
Brand loyalty
- - - - - - - - - -
Ease availability
- - - - 0.16 - - - - 16.00
Low price - - - 0.19 - - - - - 19.00
Credit facility
- - - - - - - - - -
Rank
Purchase influenced factors ranking
Factors Rank
Dealers 1
Company .Rep.guidance 2
Advertisement 3
Low price 4
Ease availability 5
Good quality 6
Friends guidance 7
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Not aware 0.82 - - - - - - - - 82
High price - - - - - - - - - 0
Satisfied with presently using product
0.13 0.35 0.17 - - - - - 65
Not available locally
- 0.12 0.07 - 0.10 - - - - 29
Not available in time
- - 0.07 0.09 - - - - - 16
Ineffective - - - - - - - - - 0
Dealers rec . other product
- 0.43 0.4 - - - - - - 83
No credit facility 0.04 - - - - - - - - 4
Lack of guidance in Use
- - - - - - - - - 0
Rank
Factors influencing ranked for non-purchase
Factors Rank
Dealer recommended other product
1
Not aware 2
Satisfied with presently using product
3
Not available locally 4
Not available in time 5
No credit facility 6
Farmers Perception about the product
PERCEPTIONPerception is the process by which an individual selects, organizes and interprets information inputs to create a meaningful picture of the world. - Kotler (2005)
Perception about the product
SI.NO Perception Number of farmers Percentage
1. Fair 2 28.6
2. Some what better 4 57.1
3. Same like others 1 14.3
4. Poor - -
Total = 7 100
Perceptual Mapping Analysis
pric
e
low
Highlow
High
Credit facility
HIJACK
ATTRATAP
ROUNDUP
Expectation of Farmers
EXPECTATIONCustomer
expectations are based on customers’ knowledge and experience.
- Levy and Weitz (2004)
Expectation of Farmers
SI. No Expectation Number of farmers
Percentage
1 Making available in time 3 42.9
2 Reducing price comparatively 1 14.3
3 Educating the Dealers - 0.0
4 Reducing the toxicity 2 28.6
Total =
7 100
FINDINGS& SUGGESTIONS
Findings
• Dealers plays major role in Sales of particular brand
• Awareness about the product is considerably less
• Product performance from farmers opinion is fair
• Mostly large farmers only getting product on credit
• Product accessibility also plays major role
Suggestions
• Product promotion by Credit facility to dealers and fixing
incentives to dealers
• Creating awareness about the product among farmers
through Field trails & demonstrations
• Increasing product accessibility by making available of
product timely in local dealers also
• Reduce toxic level to crops
Reference
• Kotler Philip(2005),“Marketing Management”, Prentice –
Hall of India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, p.13,19.
• http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal
• http://www.learnmarketing.net/perceptualmaps.htm
• http://www1.sapdesignguild.org/resources/optical_illusions/
intro_definition.htm