IMPLEMENTATION AND

EVALUATION OF BRAND
PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES FOR
LASSO IN KARNATAKA

By
ATAULLA NAIK
09PGDM051
CONTENT
• Introduction
• Company Profile

• About the product LASSO

• Objectives of the study

• Methodology

• Limitations for carrying out the project

• Data presentation and analysis

 Comparative Analysis of Company Sales Target

• Evaluation of promotional activities

• Findings

• Conclusions

 Suggestions

• References
IMPORTANCE OF AGROCHEMICALS:
 Agrochemicals form the largest and the most diverse group of
chemical compounds popularly referred to as pesticides.
 They are mainly used for plant protection and improving crop
yields.
 Every year nearly 30% of the potential of food production
valued Rs.150bn are lost due to insects, pests, plant pathogens,
weeds, rodents, and birds and in storage. Hence the use of
pesticides has become extremely necessary.
 Besides given the large growing population and scarcity of
land available for cultivation, pesticides industry has a vital
role to play in the agricultural sector.
 ABOUT SINOCHEM INDIA COMPANY PVT.
LTD.
 A China based company started in 1949 in Beijing.
 Having customers from more than 100 countries.

 Listed in “Global Fortune 500” for 19 times, ranked no. 178 in

2009.
 On 3rd Sep 2008 ,Sinochem India Co. was established in New Delhi,
making a huge step forward achieved by Sinochem's overseas
agricultural chemical project
  Agricultural chemical is a core business sector of Sinochem Int'l.

 After taking over Monsanto Company's BUTACHLOR and

ALACHLOR businesses in -India, Philippines, Thailand,
Vietnam, Pakistan and Taiwan (China) on March 1, 2008, the
preparation for the construction of Sinochem India Co. was
officially initiated.
COMPETITORS

 Sinochem Company is facing competition from both

national & multinational companies like DuPont, Bayer,
Tata Rallis, Monsanto, UPL Syngenta, Crop Chemicals
India Ltd., Chambal fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd.,
Insecticide (India) Ltd, Excel Crop care PVT LTD &
Zuari Chemicals are the major competitors for the
company. These companies with early entry in the business
of pesticides have large customer base and were able to
capture major market share.
MARKETING CHANNEL OF LASSO
Initial Supplier

Inbound Logistic

Manufacturer

Outbound Logistic

Distributer

Retailer

Consumer
ABOUT THE PRODUCT(LASSO)
 CHEMICAL NAME: 2-Chloro-2'-6'-
diethyl-N-(methoxymethyl)
acetanilide (56),Alachlor
 TRADE NAME(S): Lasso (56)

DOSAGE: 6ml/litre of water or

one litre per acre.
Pre-emergent herbicide.
It controls almost all grassy weeds.
It destroys only selective weed seeds.
LASSO has to be sprayed or broadcasted with sand within three days after
sowing.
Controls weeds for a period of 40 to 45 days.
LASSO will not affect any germinated plants including germinated weed
seeds.
LASSO cannot be used for paddy, ragi, spinach, gingely.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 
To understand the profile of farmers and
pattern of pesticide consumption in the region.
To identify the suitable promotional activities.
To implement the planned promotional
activities.
To evaluate the effectiveness of promotional
activities.
To suggest suitable promotional mix for
increasing the adaptability of lasso.
 METHODOLOGY
Need/Purpose of the study/statement of Problem
Lasso was firstly brought by Monsanto as a solution for the weeds in
their Maize fields under the trade name Lasso. As Sinochem Int'l.
has taken over Monsanto Company's Butachlor and Alachlor
businesses in India the company is new to India, so to retain the
existing customers of Lasso, to catch switchers and ultimately
increase the market share, brand promotion is needed.
1.To understand the Profile
of Farmers & pattern of
Pesticide consumption in
the region.
Method of Data collection
 The data was collected based on observation and
questionnaire.
Types of Data
 Primary and secondary Data
SOURCE OF DATA COLLECTION
Primary data
 Primary data was collected from farmers and dealers by
observation and Questionnaire method. The questionnaire used
was different for farmers and dealers.
 Visual observation at retail counters and in the market.

Secondary data
 Secondary data includes the information gathered from Books,
magazines, Newspaper, Internet and Journals that discloses the
present status of the industry, its various activities and recent
developments.
Population
 All Maize growers of Mysore (H.D. Kote), Shimoga,
Shikaripur, soraba, Shiralakopa of Karanataka state.
Period
 The research work was carried for 72 days from 20th April to
30th June.
Sample Design
 Sample Size: - 5749 Farmers from 183 villages

 Sample Unit: - Farmers/Dealer

 Sampling Technique: - Stratified random sampling

Tools for Data Collection
 Questionnaire containing both open ended and closed ended
questions were used as main tools for data collection from the
farmers.
 Discussion with the dealers and distributors was also an
important tool.
 Interview of the company personals also served the role of
another research instrument.
 FARMERS PROFILE IN THE REGION

80%

70%

60%

50% SMALL FARMERS(LESS THEN 5 ACRES)

MEDIUM FARMERS(BETWEEN 5 TO 15
ACRES)
40%
LARGE FARMERS(MORE THEN 15 ACRES)

30%

20%

10%

0%
FARMERS PROFILE

Interpretation: Based on the secondary data collected from the KVK and agriculture
dept, it was found that land holding of the farmers is decreasing day by day. Majority of
the farmers (72%) are small farmers having land holding less than 5 acres followed by
medium farmers (21%) who are having land holding between 5 acres to 15 acres and
only 7% large farmers having land holding more than 15 acres.
FARMERS PESTICIDE CONSUMPTION PATTERN

2%

23%

42%
PESTICIDE USERS

MANNUAL WEEDING

MECHANICAL WEEDING

NONE

33%

Interpretation: Based on the primary data collected from the farmers/dealers, it was
found that majority of the Maize growing farmers (42%) are using pesticides followed by
manual weeding(33%) and mechanical weeding(23%), which shows the potential to adopt
the pesticide.
MAIZE ACREAGE IN KARNATAKA OVER YEARS
Maize(area in '000ha)

255

213
199 201
189
177
165
150

1990-91 2000-01 2001-02 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

2.To identify the
suitable promotional
activities.
SELECTION OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY

 Based on farmers profile such as land holding, consumption

pattern of chemical, availability of farmers, their occupation,
education, time constraints and the studies taken up by other
input companies.
 Suggestions from experters in input industry and company
official.
 The Promotional activity also selected based on SWOT
analysis.
 Based on above all the following promotional tools was
selected and those activities are found to be best for promoting
the product.
PROMOTIONAL PLAN USED FOR DEMAND GENERATION OF
LASSO
  Farmers meetings

 Individual contact
 Field Demonstration
 Pestering
 POP display
 Special occasion
 Van campaign
 Tele-campaigning
3.To implement the
planned promotional
activities.
 Based on the potentiality of the area, the above selected
promotional activities were implemented.
 The potential of the area is determined based on
collected data from progressive farmers, retailers and
company officials.
PROMOTIONAL PLAN USED FOR DEMAND GENERATION OF
 Farmers
LASSO
 
meetings
Individual contact
Field Demonstration
Pestering
POP display
Special occasion
Van campaign
Tele-campaigning
 LIMITATIONS FOR CARRYING OUT THE
PROJECT
Despite all possible efforts to make the analysis more comprehensive and
scientific, a study of present kind is bound to have certain limitations.
Limited time and Cost constraints were major hindrance for carrying out


the project because the availability of farmers and the retailers is very
difficult for getting the response.
Few retailers and farmers expressed fear about the researcher’s mission


and were not interested in giving accurate information.

Dealers were not ready to share the information in the correct form and


duplicity appeared while providing the fact on pesticide related issues.

The product is not available in all retail shops, which create the problem


to suggest the suitable retail shop for the farmers.

The study was based on both primary and secondary data but secondary


data were available in the scattered manner and the relevance of the
secondary data may not be justified. 
4.Analysis and
Evaluation of Brand
Promotional Activities
 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPANY
SALES TARGET
14000

12000

10000

8000
2009
6000 2010

4000

2000

0
sales

Interpretation: The increase in sales target from 3000 liter to 12000 liter
i.e. change of 300%based on the market observation, is mainly due to
the promotion activities carried out by the company.
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF BRAND
PROMOTION ACTIVITIES FOR LASSO
 Total number of farmers contacted: 5749
 Total number of farmer meeting conducted: 216

 Total number of group discussion conducted: 202

 Total number of individual contact: 1182

 Total number of farmers contacted in farmer meeting: 3544

 Total number of farmers contacted in group discussion: 1023

 Total number of poster consumed: 1567

 Total number of villages covered: 142

 Number of Farmers contacted in different promotional activities
4000

3500

3000

2500

2000 Number of Farmers contacted in different

promotional activities
1500

1000

500

0
Farmer's meeting Group discussion Individual contact

Interpretation: Based on the above bar graph, the

effectiveness of promotional activities can be observed, where
in above chart it is clear that more number of farmers have
been contacted by farmers meeting followed by individual
contact and group discussion.
RANKING OF PROMOTIONAL TOOLS
Rank Promotional activity

I Farmers meeting

II Field demonstrations

III Group discussion

IV Individual contact

V Tele-campaign

VI Posters

VII Van campaign

VIII Banners
INTERPRETATION
 Among all promotional activities farmer meetings found to be
more effective because in meetings both way conversation
between company people and farmers and the farmers who
used lasso product earlier are involved.
 The concept of FAB (features, advantages and benefit of the
product) has helped a lot to convenience and influences them
to buy the product.
 Van campaign was not that effective tool in brand promotion,
farmers didn’t take it seriously and it only attracted small
children for the pamphlets.
 Purchase decision of the farmers can be influenced by regular
follow-ups after farmers meetings, field demonstrations etc.
CONCLUSION
 Farmers are very unaware about quality of any product; they
buy those products which are told by the retailer because they
completely believe on shopkeepers.
 But shop keepers sale those products in which they get more
margin.
 Promotional tools like Farmers meetings; field demonstrations,
Individual contact, and tele-campaigning were found to be
more effective tools to create demand for the LASSO.
SUGGESTION
Maintaining the good relationship with all the dealers of the territory
and availability of the product in all shops will help to sell the
products more efficiently.
Farmers are result oriented rather than to listen about the product, so
more demos and field days should be carried out in order to show
the result of the product.
Literature being given to the farmers does not contain the full
information about how to use the product, which results in failure of
the product purchase, so full details should be given about how to
use the product, company address etc in the literature.
The margin available on the sale of the product should increase, so
that dealers should also well acquaint with the product and push the
product.
Company should introduce small size pack of Lasso as farmers
demand is more. If company introduces small size pack farmers may
try the product and further they can become loyal customers of the
company.
THANKYOU