A

PROJECT REPORT

ON

To indicate the importance of consumer based brand equity on the consumers

perception of brand Aquaguard and to suggest ways to increase lead generation
through BTL activities for Eureka Forbes Limited

Completed at

In Partial Fulfillment for the requirement of the Award of Post Graduate

Diploma in Business Management 2009-2011

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Prof. Asha Sharma Neha Tomar
Project Guide PGDBM II Sem
FMS-IRM
Jaipur
 CERTIFICATE

Certified that the project report entitled To indicate the importance of

consumer based brand equity on the consumers perception of the
brand Aquaguard and to suggest measures to increase the lead
generation through BTL activities for Eureka Forbes Limited is a
record of project done independently by Miss Neha Tomar under my
guidance and supervision and that it has not previously formed the basis
for the award of any degree, fellowship or associate ship to him.

Date:
Prof. Asha Sharma

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project entitled To indicate the importance of

consumer based brand equity on the consumers perception of brand
Aquaguard and to suggest measures to increase lead generation through BTL
activities for Eureka Forbes limited is a bonafide record of work done by me
during the course of summer project work and that it has not previously formed the
basis for the award to me for any degree/diploma, associate ship, fellowship or
other similar title of any other institute.

Date: Neha Tomar

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Summer Project on To indicate the importance of consumer based brand
equity on the consumers perception of brand Aquaguard and to suggest ways to
increase lead generation through BTL activities for Eureka Forbes
Limited.offered a great learning experience. During the tenure of this project, I
was fortunate to have interacted with people, who in their own capacities have
encouraged and guided me.
Firstly, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to HR Department of
Eureka forbes Ltd. for providing me the opportunity to undergo summer
training in Marketing Department of such a reputed organization. Working with
one of the most renowned organizations was a great learning experience.
My sincere thanks go to Mr. Tapan Khurana (Area head of marketing) for
trusting my potential by giving me such a valuable project. I would also thank
him for providing his guidance and support in completing this project. Without
his support & critical evaluation this project could not have been completed
successfully.
I extend my heartiest thanks to Brig. S. K. Gaur (Director FMS-IRM), FMS-
IRM faculty members for their regular assistance all through the project and I
would also thank Prof. Asha Sharma, (Project Guide, FMS-IRM), for the
direction and purpose she gave to this project through her invaluable insights,
which constantly inspired me to think beyond the obvious.

4
Neha Tomar
PGDBM II Sem.
Table of contents:
Certificate
Declaration
Acknowledgment
Table of contents
Executive summary
Chapter 1
Introduction
Problem statement
Objectives of the study
Hypothesis
Research methodology
Type of research
Research approach
Sampling
Data collection
Statistical tools
Limitation of the study
Review of the literature
Chapter 2
Profile of the organization
Chapter 3
Analtysis of the brand equity attributes
Analysis of the consumer behavior influencers
Analysis of the BTL activities
Chapter 4
Summary of the findings
Conclusion

5
 Suggestions for BTL activities
Chapter 5
Bibliography
Webliography
Chapter 6
Appendix
List of Diagrams and Tables

Figa.1) model based division of consumer responses on willingness to update the product
with the same brand next time
Figa.2)overall view of consumer responses on willingness to update the product with the
same brand next time
Figa.3) model based division of consumer responses on willingness to recommend the brand
to others.
Figa.4)overall view of consumer consumer responses on willingness to recommend the
brand to others
Figa.5)model based division of consumer responses on being satisfied with product during
use
Figa.6)overall view of consumer responses on being satisfied with product during use
Figa.7) model based division of consumer responses on willingness to pay a higher price for
a product of the same brand
Figa.8)overall view of consumer responses on willingness to pay a higher price for the
brand as compared to other brands.
Figb.1)model based division of consumer responses on being provided safe and clean
drinking water
Figb.2)overall view of consumer responses on being provided safe and clean drinking water
Figb.3)model based division of consumer responses on aquaguard being a good value for
money product
Figb.4)overall view of consumer responses on aquaguard being a good value for money
product
Figb.5) model based division of consumer responses on the reliability of aquaguard brand
Figb.6)overall view of consumer responses on the reliability of aquaguard brand
Figb.7)model based division of consumer responses on Aquaguard being an established
brand
Fig b.8)overall view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being an established brand
Figc.1)model based division of consumer responses on Aquaguard being a quality product
Figc.2)overall view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being a quality product
Figc.3)model based division of consumer responses on being satisfied with after sales
service of the product
Figc.4)overall view of consumer responses on being satisfied with after sales service of the
product

6
Figc.5)model based division of consumer responses on aquaguard being the best choice
Figc.6)overall view of consumer responses on aquaguard being the best choice
Figc.7)model based view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being innovative in
technology
Figc.8)overall view of consumer responses on Aquaguard being innovative in technology
FigD.1)awareness of difference between RO and UV technology among consumers
FigD.2)importance of special attractive offers in buying(based on consumer responses)
FigD.3)Importance of ISI certification for buying a water purifier(based on consumer
responses)
FigD.4)importance of IMA certification for buying water purifier(based on consumer
responses
FigD.5)importance of water testing prior to buying(based on consumer responses)
FigD.6)importance of after sales service in purchase decision
FigD.7)consumer expectation of appropriate maintenance cost(based on consumer
responses)
FigD.8)importance of product to be electricitry consumption efficient(based on consumer
responses
FigD.9)sources through which consumer came across the product(based on consumer
responses)
FigD.10)whether or not display at canopy prompt buying(based on consumer responses)
FigD.11)consumer willingness to continue relationship with EFL because of free service
camps
FigD12)consumer response on whether information is provided during free service camps
FigD.13)consumer intention to exchange old products with new ones
FigD.14)intention to buy other products of eureka forbes
Table 1) mean ranks of all the attributes of brand equiy constructs and chi sqare statistic
Table1.1)average maen rank or brand equity rating of brand loyalty and brand image
Table1.2)average mean rank or brand eqity rating of perceived quality
Table 2)table for obtained mean ranks and sum of ranks through mann whitney test as well
as mann whitney u statistic

7
Executive summmary:
Eureka Forbes ltd. was founded in 1982 as a joint venture between Tata Sons
Forbes Gokak and Swedens Electrolux. The SP group however, fully acquired the
company in 2002-03 when it bought out the Tatas holding the Forbes gokak and
subsequently, Electroluxs in the joint venture.

This company of the Shapoorji Pallongi (SP) groups Forbes gokak ltd. has
succeeded in making its centre piece aqua guard brand synonymous with home
water purification. Over 71 million liters of aqua guard water are consumed daily
across the country, the model also being the only purifier to be endorsed by the
Indian medical association. Besides, EFL has introduced the worlds first universal
water purifier aquaguard total Sensa, which auto senses and selects the optimum
purification technology.

EFL has expanded its portfolio with security solutions, including home security
intrusion alarm, excess control, fire alarm, and surveillance systems. The company
additionally offers industrial solutions, such as industry water purifiers,
commercial and industrial vaccum cleaners, hard floor cleaning and maintenance
machines, high pressure cleaners, and cleaning and hygiene products.

8
The objective of this study is to identify the key driver of the customer based brand
equity for the brand Aquaguard (brand loyalty, brand image, perceived quality)
thereby affecting the customers perception of the brand and to suggest measures to
increase lead generation through BTL activities for Eureka Forbes Limited.
Broadly it can be classified in the following phases (1) A qualitative study defining
the parameters to be measured and pre testing of the questionnaire (2) designing
and administrating a questionnaire survey to assess the response of the respondents
among our representative set of customers.
Friedman test was used to find out the significant mean ranks for the
different attributes falling within the brand equity constructs. The average
mean rank or brand equity rating for each brand equity construct was then
calculated and compared. We could conclude that Brand Loyalty had the least,
Brand image had the second highest and perceived quality had the highest brand
equity rating. Brand loyalty scoring the least brand equity rating is a logical issue
because even when the customer seems to be satisfied with the product they dont
seem to be too loyal. Its possible reasons are-
1. Low switching cost for customer i.e. cheaper options available for functionally
similar products
2. Dissatisfaction among existent customers because of inefficient after sales
service by the company.
Therefore steps should be taken to make existing customers more brand loyal.
Perceived quality got the highest rating and this is justified since it is the
perceived quality of the product that is when linked with satisfaction has a positive
influence on consumer purchase intention. Hence Eureka Forbes should try to
prevent creating a shoddy image of product in terms of quality and service.

9
Brand image score was quite close to perceived quality and thus reflects its
importance. The brands with high brand equity seem to have higher brand
associations.
Null hypothesis designed for the study states that for the consumer of an
established brand of a health product like water purifier, the perception of the
quality and the technology used in different product varieties (RO and UV)
does not differ significantly. Mann Whitney test was used and was found out
that RO products scored higher mean ranks than UVproducts in both respects
(quality as well as technology) even when both the types of products belong to the
same Aquaguard brand. This signifies that the perception of the quality and
technology of the product is independent of the brand name a customer owns and
RO products seem to be perceived as better in quality and technology as compared
to UV products which supports the increasingly growing faith of buyers in RO
products.Although its interesting to note that this research also found out that
approximately 60% of those surveyed were unaware of the actual difference
between the RO and UV technology.
BTL activities aimed at increasing the brand image and brand awareness of
Eureka Forbes water purifiers through
1 organizing free service camps for customers across city.
2 free aqua guard installation.
3 making customer aware of new products of the company and explain their need
to them.
Activities like free service camps help in strengthening ties with the customers and
increase satisfaction level.BTL activities can be better designed by properly
understanding the consumer buying behavior

10
INTRODUCTION

Approximately 80% of diseases in India are caused by water borne microorganisms.

This is true in rural as well as urban India. However, awareness of health risks
linked to unsafe water is still very low among the rural population. The few who
treat resort to boiling or use domestic candle filters. In comparison the urban Indian
is definitely more health conscious and understands the necessity of purifying water
before it is fit for consumption. Even so, it is estimated that roughly 7% of urban
Indians use non manual water purifiers. More Indians need to be become aware of
the importance of installing water purifiers .Though quite a few city dwellers still
boil water ,many are still switching over to modern domestic water
purifiers.Electrical or chemical based home purification systems are most suitable
for urban households because they require little or no manual operation and
depending on the technology can eliminate biological toxins, chemical toxins and
excessive salts. The main contaminants are however microorganisms. UV purifiers
and advanced chemical based systems deal effectively with viruses and bacteria.
This is one of the reasons why UV based purifiers are most widely used water
purifiers in India.

11
It is estimated that around 80% of urban dwellers do not purify tap water. Many of
them are from the low income strata and cannot afford UV or RO purifier.They are
the potential buyers of economical but effective chemical purifiers.This is the
market that HUL and Eureka Forbes are tapping aggressively.Chemical purifiers,
together account for 20% of water purifiers sold.Both are becoming increasingly
popular as they are affordable and effective.The two brands are reported to be
growing at 100% per annum. Also they do not run on electricity and are ideal for
places where power supply is unpredictable.Neither do they need continuous water
supply.
It is estimated that roughly two thirds belong to UV water purifier while one third
is shared between RO and chemical purifiers. In the UV market segment,
Aquaguard is the clear market leader with 68% market share. Other brands are
Philips intelligent water purifier and Kents RO. The UV purifier market is growing
at a slower rate than chemical purifiers.
RO purifiers which are rather expensive and not the preferred option in many areas
have a smaller share of the market. In the RO segment Eureka Forbes is the major
player with 60% market share while 40% share is with Kent.
That the Indian market is lucrative is evident from the fact that players such as Kent
and HUL have stepped into the market

Problem statement

Building strong brand equity.

Maximize brand value .
To Increase sales .

Objectives of the study

To find out the brand equity rating for each of the three dimensions of consumer
based brand equity (i.e Brand loyalty, Brand image and Percieved quality) for
the brand Aquaguard.

12
 To obtain a comparative account of the consumer perception of the brand based
on division of respondents into RO and UV consumers.
To identify the key factor or attributes that are central to customers mind with
respect to a water purifier and thus influence his buying decision.

To give suggestions to increase lead generation through BTL activities

HYPOTHESIS
H0: For the consumer of an established brand of a health product like water
purifier,his perception of the quality and the technology used in different
products (RO and UV) of that same brand does not differ significantly.

H1: For the consumer of an established brand of a health product like water
purifier,his perception of the quality and the technology used in different
products (RO and UV) of that same brand differs significantly.

Research methodology
Marketing research is the systematic identification, collection, analysis, and
dissemination of information for the purpose of assisting management in
decision making related to the identification and solution of problems and
opportunities in marketing. The objective of this research is to identify the
factors which affect the consumer purchase decisions and also to identify the
key driver of customer based brand equity shaping the consumers perception of
the brand Aquaguard.
The result of this study could serve as a decision making tool to help Eureka
Forbes managers maximize the value of their brand.

13
(A) Type of research

(A.1) Descriptive: Descriptive research design is a scientific method which

involves observing the behaviour of a subject without influencing it in any way.For
the purpose of this study; descriptive research design is used

(A.2) Research approach

Deductive approach has to do with the building up of theory and hypothesis
after reading literatures i.e. testing theory.For the purpose of the thesis,
deductive approach was used.

(A.3) Sampling

(A.3.1) Type of sampling

Judgemental or purposive sampling was done .

(A.3.2) Sample size

100 respondents within the boundaries of Jaipur city.

(A.4) Type of data collection technique

(A.4.1) Primary data- Questionnaire

Survey was conducted in the Jaipur city of Rajasthan. A sample size of 100
respondents( companys customers) was taken for the purpose of the study.

14
(A.4.2) Secondary data

Secondary data for the purpose of the study was collected from internet and
magazines.

(A.4.3) Data Collection

The project was carried out in two phases where the information was collected
from various sources and analyzed in order to assess the importance of different
attributes of brand equity on the consumers perception of the brand Aquaguard
and also to identify the customers purchasing guiding forces, followed by
analyzing and devising below the line activities for Eureka Forbes Ltd.

Qualitative study defining the parameters to be measured and pre testing of the
questionnaire
Designing and administrating a questionnaire survey to assess the brand equity
attributes and factors affecting customers buying decision among a
representative set of customers.

(A.5) Statistical tools used

(A.5.1) SPSS-15

Mann Whitney U test- It is a non parametric test that is used to compare the
means of two samples that come from the same population. It is done for 2
independent samples

15
 Friedman test- A non parametric test used to test that the multiple ordinal
responses come from the same population. It is done for related samples
Cronbach reliability analysis- to check the reliability of the scale.

2.4 Limitations of the Study

Time constraint
Small sample size
Limited area of coverage

2.5 Review of literature

Aaker (1991) view brand equity as a multidimensional concept which is made up

of perceived qualities, brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand association and
other propriety asset A similar conceptualization was proposed by Keller (1993).
According to Keller (1993), consumer based brand equity consist of two
dimensions, brand knowledge and brand awareness.

Cob-walgren et al (1995) based their study on customer based perceptual measure

of brand equity. Their study adopted three of Aaker (1991) perceptual component
of brand equity i.e. brand awareness, brand association and perceived quality. They
tested whether brand equity has an affect on brand perception, intention and
attitude. The result of their study found out that brand equity has effect on
perception, intention and attitude.

Low and lamb Jr (2000) and Prasad and Dev (2000) also adopted four of Aaker
(1991) component i.e. brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand
association.

16
Yoo et al (2000) adopted three of Aaker (1991) component i.e. perceived quality,
brand association and brand loyalty. Their study suggested and tested a model and
the result revealed that these dimensions contribute to brand equity.

Simon and Sullivan (1993) claim that the best method for measuring brand equity
depends on the objective market based data which give room for comparison
overtime and across firm.

Simon and Sullivian (1993) used the word incremental utility to refer to brand
equity. Park and Srinivasan (1994) refer to brand equity as the distinction between
the overall brand preference and the multi attribute preference depending on the
objectively measured attribute level. Agarwal and Rao (1996) also refer to brand
equity as the total quality and choice intention. From the above it is clear that
brand equity is viewed in different ways by different researchers.

COMPANY PROFILE

Eureka Forbes is Rs 10 billion multi-product multi-channel corporations which is a

part for Shaporji Pallonji group and employs over 7000 employees. It has evolved
as a leader in domestic and industrial water purification systems, vacuum cleaners,
air purifiers and security solutions.

17
Eureka Forbes were the first to introduce domestic [water purifiers] the
''Aquaguard'' - model - as well as [vacuum cleaners] to India in the 1980s. In order
to introduce these previously unknown products to a society in which nationwide
commercial campaigns were impossibility, the company had to pioneer another
innovation - direct selling. The corps of suit-clad Eureka Forbes salesmen were the
first such in the country and were a tremendous success. They are now Asia's
largest direct selling organization with a 5,000 strong direct sales force touching
1.25 million Indian homes and adding 1,500 customers daily. Such was the success
of Eureka Forbes that ''Aquaguard'' has now become a synonym for water purifier
in India, like ''Xerox'' for [photocopying]
.
"The promise was clear: To create a company that wouldn't be about bricks,
mortar or sales graphs, but driven by something far more potent. Something that
would stand the test of time relationships."

3.1 DIRECT MARKETING:

Eureka Forbes followed the globally 'tried and tested' direct selling route for
marketing its products in India, thus becoming one of the first direct selling
companies in India. Vacuum cleaners and water purifiers were rather new concepts
for Indian consumers, who had till then followed only the traditional methods of
cleaning and filtering. Therefore, Eureka Forbes had to first establish the concept
of vacuum cleaners and water purifiers in India before it could sell 'Eureka' as a
brand. The company believed that its core strength was its people. It employed

18
dynamic, highly motivated individuals, called 'Eurochamps,' who projected the
image of 'The friendly man from Eureka Forbes. Thus, for the average Indian
consumer, Eureka Forbes became synonymous with the smartly dressed salesman
who came to their houses and cleaned up things in a jiffy or showed how air/water
purifiers were indispensable. Eurochamps initially targeted the metros but soon
began visiting smaller cities and towns also Commenting on the decision to
diversify into bottled water, company sources said that it was only to strengthen the
core products by capitalizing on their brand image. Goklaney said, "In the water
category, I will conduct activities which strengthen my core products. How I do
that and what I do is a matter of strategy." According to company sources, Eureka
Forbes not only had the financial strength, but also a strong network of sales
executives to push its new products into the market. The company's decision to
enter the retail business was primarily the result of its launch of 'Tornado' vacuum
cleaners and 'Aquaflo' water purifiers in 1995. Eureka Forbes had utilized the retail
route for this range, mainly to cater to the industrial segment. Over the years, the
retail business assumed greater significance and by 1999, around 5% of the
company's sales came from the 2500-strong dealer network.
In 1999, Eureka Forbes Ltd. (Eureka Forbes), the leading vacuum cleaner and
water/air purifier Equipment Company, announced a major policy change that
came as a surprise to the Indian corporate world. The company, regarded as the
pioneer of direct marketing in India, was planning to focus more on the retailing
business in the future. Commenting on this decision, S Goklaney, Managing
Director, Eureka Forbes, said, "Direct sales permits us to exploit only the top end
of the market." This move was in accordance with the company's plans to increase
the visibility of its products. The company planned to make its products available
in retail outlets through its dealer network, spread across 2,600 dealers.

19
3.2 Eureka Forbes Friend for Life
Customers have always been the centre of business for EFL, they strive to be in
close and constant touch with there customers listening to them and understanding
there needs. Eureka Forbes have also taken initiative to educate there customers to
change there perceptions and practices. According to the EFL officials A sale is
only the beginning of the relationship, however company makes special efforts to
let the bonds of friendship endure through there service. Everyone at EFL strives
hard to make a customer there friend for life. Eureka Forbes have rechristened
there offices to CRS Customer Response centre making them the hub of all
customer centric efforts. A significant part of there revenues comes from
relationship marketing including service contracts, spares and accessories sales,
product up gradation and new references. As more channels to reach out to
customers were introduced, organization was restructured to harmonize these
multiple avenues of interaction and present a single face to the customer - any
customer is everyone's customer under this process of 'Convergence'.

3.3 Vision:
A happy, healthy, safe and pollution-free environment based on trust and lasting
relationship with customers.

3.4 Mission:
To build sustainable relationships with customers as their friend for life by
satisfying their evolving health, hygiene, safety and lifestyle through our people
whose entrepreneurial spirit and ambition is fuelled by the culture of people,
learning , earning and fun. Our products and services that reflect innovation
become quality benchmark and provide value for money. Our policies and

20
practices that are fare, transparent and constantly improved to maximise
stakeholder satisfaction and achieve market leadership.

3.5 Product range (water purifiers):

3.5.1 Aquaguard:
Economy
Aquaguard classic
Aquaguard compact
Special usages
Aquaguard booster
Aquaguard hi-flo
Aquaguard total NF
Aquaguard ultra
Aquaguard total RO
Total protection
Aquaguard Gold Nova
Aquaguard Total Sensa
RO Based purifiers
Aquaguard Reviva

Pre- testing of questionnaire

Pre testing of the questionnaire was done to check the internal validity of the
questionnaire. This is necessary as to understand how well the attributes weigh
with respect to each other and it has to do with the design of the study as to what

21
should be measured and what should not be measured.Cronbachs alpha analysis
was used for this purpose.

Reliability Statistics

*Cronbachs Alpha of .711 signifies adequate amount of reliability

of scale.
Cronbac
hs alpha N
.711 12

Analysis for the Perceived quality attributes:

22
c.1) Respondents perception of Aqua guard as a quality
product according to the-
Model they use

Bar Chart

30 model
RO
UV

20
Count

26

10 19

13
12
10
9
6
5

0
disagree can't say agree strongly agree
quality
65.45% of the UV consumers whereas 68.7% of the RO consumers more or
less agree that Aquaguard is a quality product.

c.2)Overall analysis :

23
 quality

50

40

30
Frequency

47

20

22
10 18
13

0
disagree can't say agree strongly agree
quality

Strongly Disagree Cant say Agree Strongly

disagree agree
0% 18% 13% 47% 22%

24
c.3) Respondents view about the after sales service being
upto the expectation on the basis of:
Model used

Bar Chart

30 model
RO
UV

20
Count

28

23

10

11
9
8
6 6
4
3
2
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
service
The above chart shows that 55.55%% of the RO customers while 58.18% of
the UV customers more or less agree to being satisfied with the after sales
service

c.4)Overall analysis:

25
 service

60

50

40
Frequency

30

51

20

10 20
14
9
6

0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
service
Strongly Disagree Cant say Agree Strongly
disagree agree
14% 20% 9% 51% 6%

c.5) Respondents perception of Aquaguard as their best

choice on the basis of:

26
 Model used

Bar Chart

25 model
RO
UV

20

15
Count

21
10 20

15

11
5 9 9

5
4 4
2
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
choice
63.33% of the UV customers whereas 64.37% of the RO customers more or
less agree that aquaguard is their best choice

c.6)Overall analysis:

27
 choice

50

40

30
Frequency

41
20

24
10 20

7 8

0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
choice

Strongly disagree Cant say agree Strongly

disagree agree
7% 8% 20% 41% 24%
.

28
c.7) Respondentsperception of Aquaguard as a
technologically innovative product on the basis of -
the Model used

Bar Chart

25 model
RO
UV

20

15
Count

25

10
17
16

5 10
9 9 9

3
2
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
technology

From the above it can be inferred that nearly 73% of the RO customers and
nearly 64% of the UV customers more or less agree that aquaguard is
innovative in technology

c.8)overall analysis

29
 technology

50

40

30
Frequency

42
20

26

10 18

12

2
0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
technology

Strongly disagree Cant say Agree Strongly

disagree agree
2% 12% 18% 42% 26%

30
 Analysis of the brand image attributes
b.5)Respondentsperception of Aquaguard as a trustworthy
and reliable brand
on the basis of model used:

Bar Chart

30 model
RO
UV

20
Count

27

23

10

9 9
8
7
6
5
3 3

0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
trust
65.4% of the UV customers and nearly 68 % of the RO customers more or
less agree to Aquaguard being a trustworthy brand

31
 (b.6)overall analysis

trust

50

40

30
Frequency

49

20

10
16 16
12
7

0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
trust

Strongly disagree Cant say Agree Strongly

disagree agree
7% 16% 12% 49% 16%

32
b.7)Respondentsperception of Aquaguard as a well
established brand as compared to others
on the basis of the model used:

Bar Chart

30 model
RO
UV

20
Count

28

10 20

11
10
8
7 7
5
3
1
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
established
Nearly 71% of the UV and 66.66% of the RO customers more or less agree
that their brand is well established as compared to other brands.

33
 b.8)overall analysis:

established

50

40

30
Frequency

48

20

21
10
15
12

4
0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
established
Strongly disagree Cant say agree Strongly
disagree agree
4% 12% 15% 48% 21%

34
b.1)Respondents perception of Aquaguard as being able to
provide clean and safe drinking water
on the basis of model used

Bar Chart

30 model
RO
UV

20
Count

29

22
10

8
7 7 7
6 6
5
3

0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
promise
Nearly 64% of the RO customers and nearly 65% of the UV customers
moreor less agree that aquaguard has provided them safe and clean drinking
water.

35
 b.2)overall analysis

promise

60

50

40
Frequency

30

51

20

10
13 14
11 11

0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
promise
Strongly disagree Cant say Agree Strongly
disagree agree

36
11% 13% 11% 51% 14%

b.3)Respondents perception of Aquaguard as a value for

money product
On the basis of model used

Bar Chart

30 model
RO
UV

20
Count

27

22
10

9 9
7
6 6
5 5
4

0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
vfm

37
The above chart shows that 65.5%% of the UV customers and 64.44% of the
RO customers more or less agree that the brand has provided good value
for money.

b.4)Overall analysis:

vfm

50

40

30
Frequency

49

20

10
15 16

11
9

0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
vfm

Strongly disagree Cant say Agree Strongly

disagree agree

38
9% 15% 11% 49% 16%

Analysis of the brand loyalty attributes

(a.1) Respondents willingness to update their water

purifier with same brand next time
on the basis of model used

39
 Bar Chart

30 model
RO
UV

20
Count

29

23

10

10
7 7 7
5
4 4 4

0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
updation
61.8% of the UV customers and 66.67% of the RO customers more or less
agree to update their water purifier with the same brand next time.

(a.2)overall analysis:

40
 updation

60

50

40
Frequency

30
52

20

10
17
11 12
8

0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
updation
Strongly disagree Cant say agree Strongly
disagree agree
8% 11% 17% 52% 12%

(a.3) Respondents willingness to recommend the brand to

others

41
 model used

Bar Chart

40 model
RO
UV

30
Count

20

31

21
10

10
6 6 7
5 5 4 5

0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
recommend
62.2% of the RO customers and nearly 65.45% of the UV customers more or
less agreeto recommending the brand to others.

(a.4)overall analysis

42
 recommend

60

50

40
Frequency

30
52

20

10
16
12
10 10

0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
recommend

Strongly Disagree Cant say agree Strongly

disagree agree
10% 16% 10% 52% 12%

43
(a.5)Respondents view on being satisfied during use of the
product:
on the basis of model used

Bar Chart

40 model
RO
UV

30
Count

20

31
27

10

12

6 7
4 4 3 4
2
0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
satisfaction
63.63% of the UV customers while 66.3% of the RO customers more or less
agree that aquaguard has satisfied them during use

(a.6)overall analysis

44
 satisfaction

60

50

40
Frequency

30 58

20

10 18

11
6 7

0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
satisfaction

Strongly disagree Cant say agree Strongly

disagree agree
6% 18% 11% 58% 7%

45
(a.7)Respondents willingness to pay a higher price for the
brand as compared to others.
on the basis of model used:

Bar Chart

30 model
RO
UV

20
Count

26

10 20

10
7 7 7 7
6
5 5

0
strongly disagree can't say agree strongly agree
disagree
premium
60% of the UVcustomers while nearly 58% of the RO customers more or less
agree to pay a higher price for the Aquaguard brand as compared to others

46
(a.8)overall analysis:

premium

50

40

30
Frequency

45

20

10 18
14 13
10

0
strongly disagree disagree can't say agree strongly agree
premium
Strongly disagree Cant say agree Strongly
disagree agree
10% 18% 14% 45% 13%

47
 Brand equity rating analysis

Friedman test was used to calculate the mean ranks of all the brand
attributes in order to identify the most important brand equity attribute which
affects the consumer perception of the brand. This test was conducted directly
with the help of the software SPSS. The data was inserted in the software and
the test was applied for calculating the mean ranks for the components of
different attributes of brand equity.

Specified alpha level is .05

Table 1

Attributes Mean Rank

Updation 5.85
Recommend 6.14
Satisfaction 6.06
Premium 5.15
Promise 6.57
Value for money 6.55
Trustworthy 6.73
Established 6.89
Quality 7.51
Service 5.67
Choice 7.29
Technology 7.02

Test Statistics(a)

N 100
Chi-Square 42.367
Df 11
Asymp. Sig. .000

48
 The t statistic shows the asymp sig as .000 which is less than the significance
level of .05. Small significance level indicates that at least one of the variables
differs from others. Because a chi square statistic as extreme as 58.63 with 11
degrees of freedom is unlikely to have arisen by chance we conclude that
customer hold different preferences for the different attributes of the brand
constructs.

Overall brand equity rating of brand loyalty, brand image

and perceived quality:It can be calculated by taking out the
average mean ranks of all the attributes related to a particular
component.
Table 1.1

Brand loyalty and brand image

Updation 6.11

Recommend 6.14

Satisfaction 6.06

Price premium 5.79

overall mean rank for brand loyalty 6.025

Safe and clean water 6.57

Value for money 6.55

Trustworthy 6.73

Established 6.89
Table Overall maen rank for brand image 6.68
1.2

49
Perceived quality

Quality 7.51

Service 5.67

Choice 7.29

Innovative 7.02

Overall mean rank for 6.79

perceived quality

Hence, Brand loyalty showed the least brand equity rating while Perceived
quality showed the highest brand equity rating which indicates that the
perceived quality of a product has the greatest influence on the consumers
perception of the brand with brand image following it. But there is a small
difference between the brand equity rating of both perceived quality and
brand image which shows that these two things have almost equal impact
and both are extremely important affecting the consumers perception of
the brand.

Table2 - Hypothesis testing

50
H0: ROqt UVqt

H1: ROqt UVqt

Ranks

Test model N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Quality RO 45 56.23 2530.50
UV 55 45.81 2519.50
Total 100
Technology RO 45 56.59 2546.50
UV 55 45.52 2503.50
Total 100
Statistics(a)

quality Technology
Mann-Whitney U 979.500 963.500
Wilcoxon W 2519.500 2503.500
Z -2.021 -2.000
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .043 .045

Grouping Variable: model

51
The p values of .043 and .045 are less than the alpha level of .05 and hence we
can reject our null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Thus we
can say that the UV and the RO product customers differ significantly in the
perception about the quality and the technology used in their respective
products. From the sum of ranks shown in the above table we can conclude
that the RO products seem to be perceived as better in quality and technology
then the UV products.

Part 2
ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

52
D.1) Awareness of the difference between the RO technology
and UV technology

INFERENCE:

53
Approximately 60% of consumers are not aware of the actual difference
between RO and UV technology while 40% of people are aware of the
difference.

D.2)Consideration of free gifts or other attractive offer at the

time of buying.

INFERENCE:

29% of consumers agree that they did consider special attractive offers at the
time of purchase of water purifier while 71% people did not consider it.

54
D.3) IMPORTANCE OF I.S.I. CERTIFICATION IN
MAKING BUYING DECISION

INFERENCE:

55
79% of the total consumers consider that I.S.I. certification is extremely
important while 21% of the total consumers consider that I.S.I. certification
is important.

D.4) Importance of IMA (Indian Medical Association)

endorsement in buying a water purifier

56
INFERENCE:

10% of the consumers consider that I.M.A. endorsement is extremely

important, 39% of the consumers states that I.M.A. endorsement is important
46% of the consumers are not sure.While 5% dont consider it important.

D.5) Importance of water testing prior to buying

INFERENCE:

57
13% of consumers thinks that water testing is not necessary and 87% of
consumers thinks that water testing is necessary before buying the product.

D.6)Importance of after sales service as a consideration in

purchase decision

INFERENCE

58
For 60% of the customers, after sales service is an extremely important
consideration with respect to water purifier, for 37% it was important while
3% are not sure of it

D.7) Appropriate maintenance cost for water purifier

INFERENCE

12% consumers think that Rs0-300 is the appropriate maintenance cost, 61%
consumers think that Rs300-800 is the appropriate maintenance cost and 27%

59
consumers think that Rs800 thatRs800-1500 is the appropriate maintenance
cost for water purifier annually.

D.8) Importance of electricity consumption efficiency of a

water purifier

INFERENCE:

60
53% of the consumers consider that electricity consumption efficiency of
water purifier is extremely important and 39% of the consumers thinks that
electricity consumption efficiency of water purifier is important.8% are not
sure of it.

D.9) Sources of awareness of water purifier

INFERENCE:

61
18% of consumers got aware of the product through references, 16 % through
newspaper/TV, 24% through product display and 37 % through door
knocking.

D.10) Importance of product display in prompting buying

the product

62
INFERENCE:

55% of consumers say that product display at canopy/exhibition plays

important role in prompting buying and 45% of consumers says that product
display at canopy/exhibition does not prompt buying .

D.11) Contribution of free service camp in maintaining

relationship with customers

63
INFERENCE:

54% consumers think that they will like to continue relationship with
aquagaurd because it is closer to customers through free service camps, 12%
consumers think that they will not like to continue relationship and 34%
consumers cant say anything.

D.12) Provision of information related to new technology

products introduced

64
INFERENCE:

41% of consumers states that information related to new introduced

technology products is provided during free service camps and 59% of
consumers states that information related to new introduced technology
products is not provided in free service camps.

D.13) Exchanging of product after the introduction of new

products

65
INFERENCE:
62% consumers states that they would like to exchange their product after
the introduction of new products, 2% consumers states that they will not like
to change their product and 34% states that they cant say anything.

D.15) Intention of buying other products of Eureka Forbes

66
INFERENCE:

55% of consumers states that they are intending to buy other products of
Eureka Forbes and 15% of consumers states that they are not intending to
buy other products of Eureka Forbes.While 30% of them are not sure .

Summary of the findings

67
 From the analysis done on the basis of the survey conducted it was inferred that
perceived quality showed the highest brand equity rating and brand loyalty
showed the least brand equity rating .

After sales service offered by the company is an important consideration for the
customer.

For the same brand, the RO products are perceived to be superior in quality and
technology as compared to UV products.

ISI certification is an important consideration while buying whereas the

customer is less sensitive towards IMA endorsement.

The consumer awareness of the actual difference between RO and UV

technology is quite low.

Water testing prior to buying the product is an important consideration for the
customer.

Special attractive offers do not matter much to the customers at the time of
buying.

Customers wouldnt mind exchanging their products with the newly introduced
products or models

68
 Electricity consumption efficiency of the product is an important consideration
for the customer.

Rs 300-800 is considered an appropriate maintenance cost per annum for the

water purifier.

SUGGESTIONS FOR BELOW THE LINE ACTIVITIES:

69
1) Contact builders before the completion of project so that contracts can be made
in advance regarding the installation of water purifier in the society.
2) In free service camps , customers should be informed about the new and better
technology being offered by the company in the products of other product lines as
well.
3) The UV water purifier and RO water purifier should be targeted in different
areas according to the T.D.S. of water.
4) IMA endorsement and ISI certification (product strength) should be highlighted.
5) Emails should be sent to the existing customers asking for referrals. If the sales
materialize give them free service.
6) Distribute discount coupons and free service coupons through newspaper.
7) Install water purifier at Temples, mosque etc. That will help in creating a good
brand image.
8) Send mails to existing customers about the new products or special offers.
9) Present customers who are intending to buy products of some other product line
of the company be given an extended free service for the current product.
10) Free trial of newly launched products be provided during free service camps.

70
CONCLUSION:

Among all brand associations Perceived quality helps drive financial performance.
A customer might be overly influenced by the previous image of the bad quality of
the product. Thus it is critical to protect the brand from gaining a shoddy image.
After sales service form an integral part of perceived quality and could be a serious
cause of dissatisfaction for the customer if not properly looked into.
In todays fast moving world customers dont stick to the product for life.
Advertisements and increased options make them switch the brand as soon as they
feel the need.
Water-purifying companies are using direct selling techniques but of late other
methods are also evolving. There is now increased brand awareness among
customers and companies should look beyond door to door selling and explore new
methods of promotion. Media potential needs to be tapped properly as this is the
medium the customer is most exposed to.
Moreover there are many different issues that hinder the sales of water purifier
like maintaining the uninterrupted electric supply and cost of maintenance.
Furthermore the company needs to maintain long lasting relationship with its
customers which is possible through proper addressal of the problems of the
customers related to product. . Highly committed customers should not be taken
for granted. Brand loyalty can be increased by attaining a clear and effective brand
identity. A firm should avoid diverting resources from the loyal core towards the
non customers and price switchers. The company should not forget the customers
once its product has been bought by him.

71
 Bibliography
Marketing Management by Kotler
CM Kothari (statistics)
CM Choudhary (research methodology)

Webliography
www.google.com
www.eurekaforbes.com

72
Questionnaire

Basic details:

Name: ____________________________________

Address: __________________________________

No. of family members: ___________________________

Do you currently own a water purifier of Eureka Forbes?

(A) yes
(B) no

Please mention the name of the model _________________

Key to rank the attributes:

Strongly disagree 1
Disagree 2
Cant say 3
Agree 4
Strongly agree 5

73
Brand Loyalty:

1) I intend to update my water purifier that I currently have with the

same product the next time-
a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

2) Your water purifier has provided you satisfaction during the use-
(a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

3) I would definitely recommend the same water purifier that I have to

others as well-
a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

4) I am willing to pay a higher price to buy this water purifier instead of

other available in the market-
a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

Brand Image:

5) My water purifier has delivered on its assurance of providing clean

and safe drinking water-
a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

6) My water purifier has given me good value for money-

a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

7) My water purifier scores high in trustworthiness/ reliability-

74
a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

8) I own a well established brand as compared to other brands-

a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

Perceived Quality:

9) I do relate quality to my present water purifier-

a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

10) The after sales service being provided has been upto my expectation-

a) 1 b)2 c)3 d)4 e)5

11) I believe that this is the best choice that I have made out of the
available lot in the market-
a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

12) The water purifier I own is innovative in technology used for water
purification-
a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5

Part 2
13) Are you aware of the difference between the RO technology and UV
technology used for water purification?

a) Yes b) no

If yes, kindly mention_______________________

75
14)Did you consider special attractive offers at the time of purchase of
the water purifier?
a) Yes b) no

15) How important as a criteria the ISI certification for any water
purifier is?
a) Extremely important b) important
c) Not important at all d) not sure

16) How important as a criteria the IMA (Indian Medical Association)

endorsement for any water purifier is?
a) Extremely important b) important
c) Not important d) not sure

17) Do you think water testing is important before buying any water
purifier?
a) Yes b) no

18) How important do you think is the requirement of a proper after

sales service for a product like water purifier?

a)extremely important b)important

c)cant say d)not important

19) What do you think is the appropriate maintenance cost of a water

purifier to afford per annum?

a) Rs.0-300 b) Rs.300-800
c) Rs.800-1500 d) Rs.1500-2000
e) Rs. 2000-3000

76
20) How important is the electricity consumption efficiency of any
water purifier in buying it ?

a) Extremely important b) important

c) Not important d) not sure

Q21) How did you first come across a product by EUREKA FORBES-
a) Reference b) Newspaper/TV
c) Product display at canopy/Exhibition/Apartment Activity
d) Door knocking e) other sources

Q22) Has Product display at Canopy/Exhibition prompted you to buy

the product?
a) Yes b) No

Q23) Will you continue your relationship with Aqua guard keeping in
view the free service camps being organized for you?
a) Yes b) no c) cant say

Q24) Is information related to new technology products provided to you

in free service camps?
a) Yes b) No

Q25) Would you consider exchanging your product with a new

introduced product ?
a) Yes b) No c) cant say

Q26) Are you intending to buy different category product offered by

Eureka Forbes e.g. Vacuum cleaners / security system / Air purifiers?
a) Yes b) No

77
78