market research on nestle maggi
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
TWO MINUTE WAR
Submitted by:
Sahil Bansal - U110104
Shalil Guha – U110107
Sherwin Trindade – U110108
Subhradeep Mitra – U110115
Sukant Bisoi – U110118
Swagatika Priyadarsini – U110119
Tapaswini Mallick – U110120
MARKETING OBJECTIVE To increase the falling market share
of Nestle Maggi
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE To identify the attributes where maggi
lags w.r.t. competition To evaluate customer expectations from
instant noodles on certain parameters To find the gaps between the customer
preferences and present offerings of Maggi
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS• Primary data:
FGD Questionnaire
• Analysis Univariate Bivariate Multivariate
Factor analysis Cluster analysis Jaccard analysis Stochastic model Multiple variable regression
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION To understand the perception and the
expectation of a general customer from instant noodles.
The participants (8): XIMB studentsAge: 20-26 yrsSeven male and one femaleFull time hostel residents
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION
ObservationsInstant noodles formed an important
part of their menu especially when shortage of time
People also liked maggi due to convenience of preparation.
Many respondents were not aware of the new brands
Consumers preferred variety of flavors as compared to plain maggi
They consume maggi for snacks, and when they want to have a quick bite
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Findings
The preference for instant noodle is due to Ease of availability Good alternative to ordering from out/preparing regular
food at home Want to have a quick snack
Maggie has the highest TOMA in our respondents.The key driving force for Maggi were
Availability Brand Image
Zero brand loyalty: They wouldn’t mind switching new brands because of the new variety offerings.
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
UNI-VARIATE ANALYSIS
AGE
The majority of our respondent lies in the age group of 19-24 (63%) and 25-30 age group (31%)
UNI-VARIATE ANALYSIS
INCOME
The income level of the respondents are 5-10 lakh (33%), 1-5 lakh (29%), >15 lakh (12%), <1 lakh (7%)
UNI-VARIATE ANALYSISOCCUPATION
The majority of our respondents are working group(49%) and students (48%)
UNI-VARIATE ANALYSIS
PREFER MAGGI
Most of our respondents prefer maggi (82%)
BI-VARIATE ANALYSIS
19-24 25-30 31-35 above 350%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
% Awareness of Instant noodles
BI-VARIATE ANALYSIS
male female76%
78%
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
92%
% Awareness based on sex
BI-VARIATE ANALYSIS
Masala
Chicken
Tomato
Curry
Capsica
Manchurian
Hot Garlic
Schezwan
Oriental
Chilli
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
SatisfiedNeutralDissatisfied
BI-VARIATE ANALYSIS People prefer Schezwan, Tomato and
oriental flavors People do not prefer Masala and Curry
flavors
Masala Chicken Tomato Curry Capsica Manchurian Hot Garlic Schezwan Oriental Chilli
Satisfied 1 4 8 7 7 9 9 7 4 7
Neutral 9 13 25 20 25 18 18 20 28 19
Dissatisfied 68 49 38 46 28 38 35 34 28 38
Grand Total 80 81 79 80 79 78 78 78 79 78
FACTOR ANALYSIS
FACTOR ANALYSIS : MAGGIRotated Component Matrixa
Component 1 2
Price Taste .710
Shape_of_noodles .756
Packaging .763
Preparation_time .746
Ease_of_preparation .723
Brand_image
Healthy Availability_in_market .707
Variety_of_flavors .738
Value_for_money
Satisfies_hunger
Advertisment
FACTOR ANALYSIS - MAGGI
Price
Taste
Shape_of_noodles
Packaging
Preparation_time
Ease_of_preparation
Brand_image
Healthy
Availability_in_market
Variety_of_flavors
Value_for_money
Satisfies_hunger
Advertisment
.000 .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700
Preference
Preference
FACTOR ANALYSIS - MAGGI
FACTOR ANALYSIS- MAGGI
Factor 1:Convenience
TastePackagingPreparation timeEase-of-PreparationShape of noodle
Factor 2:Coverage
• Availability in market• Variety
FACTOR ANALYSIS- MAGGI Summary: The following factors influence the
buying behaviour of users using maggiConvenience: such as ease of preparation, variety, packaging and preparation timeCoverage: such as brand image and availability in market
FACTOR ANALYSIS – COMPETITION
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component 1 2
Price Taste
Shape_of_noodles
Packaging .706
Preparation_time .860
Ease_of_preparation .743
Brand_image .709
Healthy Availability_in_market .723
Variety_of_flavors .736
Value_for_money
Satisfies_hunger
Advertisment .782
FACTOR ANALYSIS – COMPETITION
Price
Taste
Shape_of_noodles
Packaging
Preparation_time
Ease_of_preparation
Brand_image
Healthy
Availability_in_market
Variety_of_flavors
Value_for_money
Satisfies_hunger
Advertisment
.000 .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 .800
Preference
Preference
FACTOR ANALYSIS – COMPETITION
FACTOR ANALYSIS – COMPETITION
Factor 1:Convenience & Attractiveness
• Packaging • Preparation Time• Ease-of-Preparation
Factor 2:Coverage & perception
Brand ImageAvailability in marketVariety of flavorsAdvertisement
FACTOR ANALYSIS – COMPETITIONSummary: The following factors influence the
buying behaviour of users of competitors
Convenience & Attractiveness – such as ease of preparation and preparation time .
Coverage & Perception- such as Brand Image, Availability in market, Variety of flavors, Advertisement
CLUSTER ANALYSIS : DEMOGRAPHIC
Age:19-24,Single,Income: 1-10 lakh
Age:25-30Working,Income: 5-10 lakh
Age:19-24,Single,Income: >10 lakh
CLUSTER ANALYSIS : DEMOGRAPHICS
Cluster1•Single•Age 19-24•Family income 1-10 lakh
Cluster2•Single•Working•Age 25-30•Family income greater than 5-10 lakh
Cluster3•Single•Age 19-24•Family income greater than >10 lakh
CLUSTER ANALYSIS : DEMOGRAPHICS Cluster 1 : Primary users are single with
age group of 19-24 for whom convenience is an essence and who most probably do not have a partner or family to cook and prepare food for them on a regular basis.
Cluster 2 : Primarily users who are working and single with age group 25-30 and they do not have time to prepare/cook food, consume maggi regular basis.
Cluster 3 : Primarily students coming from high income families who consume instant noodles less than once a week.
BRAND AWARENESS : TOMA
Brands RespondentsNissin 4
Top Ramen 2Chings 2Maggi 46Total 54
TOMA 85%
The TOMA for maggi is 85%
JACCARD ANALYSIS
Attribute Maggi KnorrPrice 0.807 -
Taste 0.719 0.257
Shape of noodles 0.719 0.2
Preparation Time 0.831 0.21
Ease of preparation 0.807 0.2
Brand Image 0.878 0.225
Healthy 0.646 0.3
Availability 0.865 0.257
Variety 0.768 0.303
Value for money 0.817 0.218
Advertisement 0.807 0.235
JACCARD ANALYSIS Primary drivers of maggi:
Preparation timeBrand imageAvailability
Primary drivers of Knorr Soupy noodlesHealthyAvailabilityVariety of offerings
SWOT ANALYSIS
Attribute Maggi Foodles YippieTop
Ramen Knorr ChingsPrice 2% -4% -3% 0% 10% -4%
Taste -6% -2% -4% 5% 3% 3%
Shape_of_noodles -4% -4% 5% 7% -4% -1%
Packaging 0% 0% -1% 1% 0% -1%
Preparation_time 5% 0% -2% -1% 3% -4%
Ease_of_preparation 0% -1% 5% 0% -5% 0%
Brand_image 9% 2% -2% -3% -4% -3%
Healthy -12% 16% 1% -6% 0% 1%
Availability_in_market 6% -3% -2% 0% 0% -1%
Variety_of_flavors -2% -7% -1% 4% 2% 4%
Value_for_money 4% 0% -2% -1% -3% 2%
Satisfies_hunger -6% -1% 3% 0% -1% 4%
Advertisment 5% 1% 1% -6% 0% -1%
Strength >5 Opportunity 0-5
Weakness <-5 Threat -5-0
SWOT ANALYSIS : MAGGI• Brand Image• Availability• Advertisement• Preparation Time
• Healthy• Taste• Satisfies Hunger
• Price• Value for money• Packaging
• Shape of noodles
• Variety of flavors
Strength
Weakness
Opportunity
Threat
STOCHASTIC SHARE ANALYSIS
% preference Prefered Set ratio Stochastic Share
Maggi 92% 1.79 0.513393 55%
Knorr 48% 1.95 0.246154 26%
Foodles 35% 2 0.175 19%
.93
STOCHASTIC SHARE ANALYSIS On comparison with other brands we find that
maggi occupies 55% mindshare of the consumers.
The consumer is likely to buy a packet of maggi once every two times he visits a mall/supermarket from a range of instant noodles available.
In comparision, Its nearest competitors Knorr (26% mind share) buying probability (1:4) Foodles(19% mind share) buying probability (1:5)
The company has to keep a track of stochastic data on a periodic basis to identify the pattern in future buying behaviour of the consumer
MULTIPLE REGRESSION
MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS: MAGGI
Model Summaryb
Model R R SquareAdjusted R
SquareStd. Error of the
Estimate1 .654a .428 .322 .87745
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95.0% Confidence Interval for B
B Std. Error BetaLower Bound
Upper Bound
1 (Constant) 6.868 .548 12.532 .000 5.775 7.961
price -.044 .176 .264 1.835 .071 -.028 .673taste -.815 .169 -.696 -4.827 .000 -1.152 -.478shape .162 .153 .147 1.059 .293 -.143 .466packing -.159 .197 -.121 -.806 .423 -.551 .234preparation_time -.175 .152 -.155 -1.153 .253 -.477 .128
ease_of_preparation .326 .173 .264 1.884 .064 -.019 .670
brand .323 .210 -.033 -.209 .835 -.463 .376healthy -.141 .121 -.130 -1.163 .249 -.383 .101availability .279 .161 .205 1.731 .088 -.042 .600variety -.310 .103 .245 2.255 .027 .027 .437valueformoney -.194 .170 -.173 -1.141 .258 -.534 .145
satisfaction -.040 .146 -.037 -.276 .783 -.332 .251
advertisment .232 .159 -.140 -1.038 .303 -.481 .152
MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS: COMPETITION Model summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R SquareStd. Error of the Estimate
1 .371a .138 -.023 1.31486Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standar
dized
Coeffici
ents
t Sig.
95.0%
Confidence
Interval for B
B
Std.
Error Beta
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1 (Constant) 4.378 1.030
4.24
9
.000 2.323 6.433
price .088 .217 .056 .406 .686 -.344 .520
taste -.034 .217 -.023 -.155 .877 -.467 .400
shape -.066 .220 -.042 -.302 .764 -.506 .373
packing -.281 .230 -.194 -
1.21
8
.227 -.740 .179
preparatio
n_time
-.132 .235 -.094 -.560 .577 -.600 .337
ease_of_pr
eparation
.316 .234 .212 1.35
3
.180 -.150 .782
brand -.299 .260 -.192 -
1.15
3
.253 -.817 .218
healthy .397 .221 .272 1.79
3
.077 -.045 .838
availability .068 .189 .054 .360 .720 -.308 .444
variety .275 .228 .201 1.20
7
.232 -.180 .730
valueformo
ney
.180 .241 .129 .745 .459 -.302 .661
satisfactio
n
-.335 .267 -.230 -
1.25
4
.214 -.868 .198
advertisme
nt
-.187 .215 -.143 -.867 .389 -.616 .243
Maggi R square value is 0.428Following variables are found to have positive correlation
Ease of preparation Availability Brand Advertisement
Competition R square value is 0.138Following variables are found to have positive correlation.
Ease of preparation Healthy Variety
MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS We can see that the drivers for Maggi and its
competition are different. As the consumer is becoming health conscious it is
shifting towards noodles which are perceived to be healthy, maggi is not considering healthy.
Also maggi does not have the choice of flavors as compared to others and is likely to lose market share.
Maggi’s strong points are brand image, availability and the company has to build up on it by coming up with new choice of flavors, introducing health conscious foods.
OBSERVATIONS & SUGGESTIONS The brand loyalty of maggi is very low and
there is a high chance of shifting to a competitor’s product
We can see that the drivers for Maggi and top ramen are different is availability and brand image but for competition it is variety of flavors
Maggi is widely available hence it sells more but as the supply of competitor product increases its share is likely to fall
Maggi is not considered healthy and the shift of the younger generation towards health foods does not augur well for it.
OBSERVATIONS & SUGGESTIONS The stochastic share of maggi is 55%, the
company still has an edge over competitors as far as buying is concerned.
This also gives an opportunity to the company to improve the market share by identifying the areas where it lacks namely : Variety of flavorsHealth food
Maggi’s strong points are brand image which is very difficult to lose. Hence the company should build up on the brand image that it has build over the years
OBSERVATIONS & SUGGESTIONS Nestle needs to increase its
advertisements potraying Maggi as a healthy product
They need to come up with flavours that are in keeping with the customer preferences.
Maggi should withdraw flavors like masala and curry and bring in new flavors such as schezwan and manchurian.
THANK YOU!