Effect of Brand Extension on the Sale of LU Bakeri Biscuits -Majid Bashir (4750)

Effect of Brand Extension on Sales of Bakeri Biscuits: A product of LU Continental Biscuits Private Limited

MAJID BASHIR ID: 4750

Master of Business Administration (MBA – Marketing)

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

Introduction Key variables of research Statement of Problem Research Objective Methodology Data Analysis Conclusion Recommendations

INTRODUCTION Organization

LU Continental Biscuits (Pvt.) Ltd. – The Global Manufacturers of the LU range, which was subsequently acquired by the DANONE group.

Expansive investments were made including the import of technology and professional expertise from abroad.

Background Incorporated in 1984, Hasan Ali Khan (the founder of Continental

Biscuits), Joint Venture Agreement with Generale Biscuits Subsequently acquired by the Danone Group Innovative Brands - TUC, Prince and Candi into

the category of plain biscuits, cream variants, crackers

New Brand Bakeri – with line extension coconut, Date, Butter, Classic , Bistiks

Brand Familiarity

Brand Taste

Competitors’ knowhow

Brand Attraction.

Product Availability.

Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to flavor.

Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste.

Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision).

Consumption Pattern (Taste).

Consumer Response On Brand Extension of LU

(Bakeri)

KEY VARIABLES OF

RESEARCH

STATEMENT OF

PROBLEM

• Does Brand Extension’s affects on the sales of new brands itself as well as on the mother brand too?

• Does Brand Extension increases the opportunities for the brands to gain more market share and it would also increases sales volume of the same organization?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To Determine the impact of Brand Name on FMCG Product (Biscuit);

2. To study the effect of Brand Extension on FMCG product Sales especially biscuit;

3. To study the effect of Brand Extension on consumer buying behavior of FMCG Products;

4. To find the consumption pattern of the consumer after Brand Extension on a FMCG Product;

5. To determine the effect of advertisement on Brand Extension and consumer attention towards specific variety;

6. To study the effect of brand extension on the mother brand;

7. To identify the effects on Brand Extension on it Variety;

8. To study the Brand Extension on Brand Name of the same FMCG Product;

METHODOLOGYResearch Design

• Nature Descriptive

• Investigation Causal

• Researcher Interference Moderate

• Study setting Non-Contrived

• Performance Field experiment

• Unit of Analysis Group

• Time Horizon Cross-Sectional

Continued

Sampling Design

Population:All consumers of LU Continental Biscuits especially Bakeri biscuits for last two years or more having age between 20 to 40 years.

Sampling:Simple Random Sampling is used to get responses from the LU Continental Biscuits especially consumers of Bakeri Biscuits.

METHODOLOGY

DATA ANALYSIS

Responses:

Hypothesis:Ho: Respondent does not agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) sabotage the mother brand LU. HA: Respondent agrees that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) sabotage the mother brand LU.

DataNull Hypothesis m= 3Level of Significance 0.05Population Standard Deviation 1.04Sample Size 357Sample Mean 2.74

Intermediate CalculationsStandard Error of the Mean 0.055043Z Test Statistic -4.72361

Upper-Tail Test Upper Critical Value 1.644854p-Value 0.999999

Do not reject the null hypothesis

Critical Region:Accept Ho as p value (0.99) > 0.05

Analysis:At significance level of 95% the p value (0.99) is greater than 0.05; so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. So, it means that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) did not sabotage the mother brand LU but it enhance the revenue for the mother brand..

Hypothesis:

Ho: There is no association between Income and Competitors’ knowhow.HA: There is an association between Income and Competitors’ knowhow.Responses:

CrosstabCompetitor’s

Knowhow TotalNO YES

Income

10,000-20,000Count 47 105 152Expected Count 49.4 102.6 152.0



41,000 & AboveCount 13 26 39Expected Count 12.7 26.3 39.0

TotalCount 116 241 357Expected Count 116.0 241.0 357.0

Result Summary :

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .302a 3 .960

Likelihood Ratio .303 3 .959

Linear-by-Linear Association .185 1 .667

N of Valid Cases 357

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.67.


Analysis:At significance level of 95% the p value (0.960) is greater than 0.05; so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. So, it means that there is no association between Income and the Competitors’ knowhow.

Hypothesis:

Ho: There is no association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision)HA: There is an association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision)

Responses: Crosstab

Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision)

TotalName Price

Availability

Taste

Area

DHACount 9 11 9 13 42Expected Count

6.4 12.6 7.1 15.9 42.0

CliftonCount 4 9 5 14 32Expected Count

4.8 9.6 5.4 12.1 32.0

P.E.C.H.SCount 16 24 17 32 90Expected Count

13.6 27.0 15.1 34.0 90.0

Gulshan - E-Iqbal

Count 11 28 15 37 91Expected Count

13.8 27.3 15.3 34.4 91.0

SaddarCount 4 16 3 13 36Expected Count

5.4 10.8 6.1 13.6 36.0

North Nazimabad


10.0 19.8 11.1 25.0 66.0

Total


54.0 107.0 60.0 135.0 357.0

Chi-Square Tests

Value dfAsymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 12.249a 20 .907

Likelihood Ratio 11.993 20 .916

Linear-by-Linear Association

.196 1 .658

N of Valid Cases 357

a. 7 cells (23.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09.

Result Summary :


Analysis:At significance level of 95% the p value (0.907) is greater than 0.05; so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. So, it means that there is No association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).

Hypothesis:

Ho: Respondent don't agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the customer’s options to choose the best product.

HA: Respondent agrees agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the customer’s options to choose the best product.

DataNull Hypothesis m= 3Level of Significance 0.05Population Standard Deviation 1.12Sample Size 357Sample Mean 2.26

Intermediate CalculationsStandard Error of the Mean 0.059277Z Test Statistic -12.4838

Upper-Tail Test Upper Critical Value 1.644854p-Value 1

Do not reject the null hypothesis

Responses:


Analysis:At significance level of 95% the p value (0.907) is greater than 0.05; so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. So, it means that there is No association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).

CONCLUSION

• Age and Brand familiarity is related to each

other.

• Young one always wanted to explore new

product/ brand to increase their own

experience.

• Adults or aged consumers prefer to use the same brand again and again. Old persons never tried to explore new ideas no matter how improve or beneficial to them.

• There is no association between area of

residence and consumer buying behavior with

respect of any particular flavor of the product.

• Brand extension on the mother brand that

either it sabotages the reputation of parent

brand or it enhances the sale of company.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Brand extension make consumer life easy to choose without any hesitation, as he/she was familiar with the brands.

• Consumers Are happy with available range of products as it fulfills their need and demand.

• LU decision of extended Bakeri brands was very successful and its line extension with respect to different taste like coconut, date, classic etc are further steps to satisfied their loyal customers.

• LU can increase its sales by bring the ticky packaging of Bakeri all flavors to target the school going children and increase its sales.

Questions ?

Documents

Effect of Brand Extension on the Sale of LU Bakeri Biscuits -Majid Bashir (4750)