Presentation On Consumer Behaviour

A study on consumer behavior of farmers reguarding selected brands

Introduction of NFL • NFL Plant estb. in 1956 as Nangal fertilizers & chemicals ltd(NFCL). Main consideration regarding its location: II. Upgrading the area III. Employment opportunities IV. Availability of electricity & water

NFL • Second largest producer of fertilizer in India • Based on electrolysis of water • Production of 35.49 MTPD of urea • Produce heavy water used in atomic reactors as moderators • Well equipped R&D,searching the alternatives of petrol using H2 and methanol

Products • • • • • • • • •

Liquid oxygen Liquid nitrogen Nitric acid Ammonium nitrate Methanol Industrial sulphur Sodium nitrate Carbon dioxide Urea( prills)

NFL operating plants Naya Nangal(Punjab) Bathinda(punjab) Panipat(Haryana) Vijaypur(Madhya pradesh)

Corporate Objectives • • • • • •

Productivity Marketing & consumer service Organizational growth Research & development Obligations to society Maintaining sphere of influence

Competitive Structure

Objectives of study • A Study On Consumer Behavior Of farmers Regarding Selected Brands Of Urea with special Reference To Kisan Urea 3. consumption behavior of farmers 4. satisfaction level of consumer 5. perception of consumer

Research Methodology • • • • • •

Research design Data collection universe Population Sampling Unit Sample Size

Data analysis

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

C

an ti ty

Q u

fa c

re di t

al it

y

il it y

Percentage

Q u

P ri ce

Response

Showing the factor affects more to purchase NFL product

Influential factor Factors influencing farmers 70 60 50 40

Number of Response

30

Percentage

20 10

r N ew sp ap e

TV

C om pa ny

D ea le r

0

Yes

R IB H K

R C

F

C O

No

N FL

FC O

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 IF

Number of Respondents

Showing credit facility given by different brands

Term of credit facility

20 15

For six months

10 For one year

5 F R IB H C O

K

R C

N F L

F C O

0 IF

Response

Term of credit facility

For more than one year

Satisfaction with credit facility 25 20 15

Yes

10 5 0 H C O K R IB

R C F

L N F

C O

No

IF F

Number of Respondents

Credit facility satisfaction

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Indifferent

C O

F

R IB H

K

R C

L

Dissatisfied N F

F

C O )

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 IF

Response

satisfaction level regarding performance of company’s Product

Highly Dissatisfied

Expectation of farmers towards their company 18 16 14 12

IFFCO)

10

NFL

Source: Field work

8

RCF

6

KRIBHCO

4 2 0 By reducing price By improving quality By making available By giving discount at suitable places

a

ro

n

m o

ti ty

ti o

a Q u

p

Q u

S

a

le

s

e

P

NFL Your brand

n

li ty

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

ri c

Resp[ondents

Preference of NFL w ith IIFCO

Comparision of NFL with RCF

Comparision of NFL with KRIBHCO 30

25

25

20

20 15

NFL Your brand

10

NFL

15

Your brand

10

5

5

0

0 Price

Quality

Quantity

Sales promotion

Price

Quality

Quantity

Sales promotion

Orientation towards other brands

Responses

90 80 70 60 50 40

Yes No

30 20 10 0 IFFCO

RCF

KRIBHCO

Sales promotion activities by IFFCO

Sales promotion activities by RCF 60

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

50

Number of Respondent

40

Percentage

30

Number of Respondent Percentage

20 10

oil tes tin g

An yo the rs An yo the rs

fac il

ity

e es Fre

Any others

Percentage

na lp ro g ram m

Educational Free soil programme testing facility

Number of Respondent

Ed uc ati o

Credit facility

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Dis co un t Cr ed it f ac ility

Response

Percentage

Discount

Fre

Sales promotion activities by KRIBHCO

sales promotion activity carried out by company 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

e fa c ili ty

me Ed u. pro gra m

Dis cou nt Cre dit fac ility

An yo the rs

ty g fa cili soi l te stin

Fre e

Ed uca t

ion al p ro g ram m

e

Dis co

unt Cre dit fac ility

0

Swot Analysis • Strengths 2. Excellent track record in terms of profit & productivity 3. Competent & qualified personnel 4. Educated trade union. 5. Experience of 35 years in production & trading • Weaknesses 7. Seasonal requirement 8. Utilization of resources

•

2. 3. • •

7. 8.

•

Opportunities Increasing national & international demand for Urea Increasing awareness among people for use of fertilizers Threats 1. Import of fertilizers from china Cost of product quite higher than others Well established competitors like KRIBHKO, RCF, IFFCO etc

Conclusion • With respect to other companies • • • • • •

Satisfied with NFL’s quality product Availability of kisan urea relevant Credit facility Prices are quite higher Poor commercial advertising of product Transportation needs help