CASE STUDY

ON SALES & DISTRIBUTION

MANAGEMENT

Presented by: Abhijeet Mishra

Ankit Kesarwani

Mohd. Aarish

Puja Srivastava

Shruti Verma
Vishal Jaiswal
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Corporate bargaining between Mr. Dilip Gangadharan (Vice

President Sales: MRF) & Mr. Chandrapal Singh ( Vice President
Purchase : MUL )
Bargaining among the two on the supply order of steel belted
radial tyres with a warranty of 25,000 KM on their respective prices.
Both of them did not reach to a consensus price and therefore the
talk ended with no fruitful result.
 PROBLEM
MRF ‘ S PERSPECTIVE: Cannot supply tyres of that quality
and specification at a price less than Rs.1600 per tyre.
MUL’S ARGUMENT: They understand the actual price and
they wanted the tyre at Rs.1200 per tyre for a mammoth size order
for the launch of “ALTO”.
MRF’S DENIAL : They cannot supply at this rate as they are
barely making any profit at this level. At this price they cannot give
their quality product
 CONSEQUENCES

Loss of opportunity , mainly by MRF

Loss of potential revenue of MRF
Bitter relationship between MRF & MUL.
Breakdown of agreement revealed improper pricing at end of MRF.
MUL compromised with quality by rejecting the price offered by
MRF.
Lack of negotiation skill among the top officials of both brands.
 A N S W E R TO T H E Q U E S T I O N : 1

No , this was not a good example how negotiation should take place
because here no negotiation took place between two parties.
Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties exchange goods
or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them.
Both the parties were using “ Distributive Bargaining ” i.e. negotiation
that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources ; a win/lose situation.
 A N S W E R TO T H E Q U E S T I O N : 2

Mr. Dilip Gangadharan would have duly considered the price of

the tyre and he should have discussed any possibility in the price cut
by other officials.
He should have compared the quality of his product and the others
to show what value can MUL could offer to its customer.
He should have adopted “Integrative Bargaining” which will
ensure a win/win situation for both the parties.
INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING

Under this approach of bargaining , negotiation seeks one or

more settlements that can create a win/win solution
This would have brought revenue and business to the MRF for
present and future and on the other hand quality product to the
MUL and its customers.
 CONCLUSION

No agreement was established by this type of bargaining by both

the parties and this moreover brought loss at both the ends
They would have invested more time and brain on the agreement
so that some fruitful result could have been ascertained.
This type of example of failure in reaching to an agreement
depicts failure of both the companies strategy and its respective
team which is directly or indirectly involved to the business.
 THANK YOU
ANY QUESTIONS?