Description
It is an mrktng Project
A Study on “PRODUCT SHARE MARKET ANALYSIS” with Reference to “KTPL Laboratories Pvt Ltd” in South chennai
Project Report Submitted To “The SRM University, School of Management” In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Award Of Degree “Master Of Business Administration” (MBA)
Submited by G. Aashish Jain (3511110589) G. Manoj Kumar (3511110594) N. Vignesh (3511110596) R. Arun Kumar (3511110606)
DEPARTMENT SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SRM UNIVERSITY, KATTANKULLATUR (2011-2013)
CERTIFICATE
Certified That This Project Report On “A STUDY ON THE PRODUCT SHARE MARKET ANALYSIS” WITH REFERENCE IN “KAUSIKH THERAPEUTICS (P) LTD” Is A Bonafide Record Of Work Done By
G. Aashish Jain (3511110589) G. Manoj Kumar (3511110594) N. Vignesh (3511110596) R. Arun Kumar (3511110606)
Under My Supervision and Submitted To The Madras University in Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Award Of The Degree Of Master Of Business Administration During The Academic Year (2011-2013).
Signature Of The Guide
Signature Of The Dean
VIVA VOCE EXAMINATION
This Report Is A Partial Fulfillment Of The Master Of Business Administration Course Submitted For Viva Voce Examination Held At Srm University, Kattankullatur.
G. Aashish Jain (3511110589) G. Manoj Kumar (3511110594) N. Vignesh (3511110596) R. Arun Kumar (3511110606)
Internal Examiner
External Examiner
DECLARATION
We, G. Aashish Jain (3511110589), G. Manoj Kumar (3511110594), N. Vignesh (3511110596), R. Arun Kumar (3511110606) Here By Declare That The Project Entitled “A Study On Product Share Market Analysis” Reference With “Kausikh Therapeutics (P) LTD” Submitted For The Master Of Business Administration Is Our Original Work And Has Now Formed The Basis For The Award Of Degree.
Place:
Date:
__________________________________________
Signatures
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Industry Profile 1.2 Company Profile 1.2.1 Objectives Of The Quality as the Primary Objective 1.3 Product Profile 1.4 Objectives Of The Study 1.4.1 Primary Objective 1.4.2 Secondary Objective 1.5 Research Methodology 1.6 Research Design 1.7 Data Collection and Research Instrument 1.7.1 Primary Data 1.7.2 Secondary Data 1.8 Sampling Unit 1.9 Research Instrument 1.10 Questionniare Design
1.11 Sampling Design 1.12 Scope For the Study 1.13 Limitations of the Study
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 R&D And Patent Infringement 2.2 South India—A Snapshot 2.3 Business Potential of South India 2.3 1 Bio-cluster 2.3 2 Bulk drugs 2.4 Manufacturing 2.5 South India: SWOT analysis 2.5 1 Strengths 2.5 2 Weaknesses 2.5 3 Opportunities 2.5 4 Threats 2.6 Interlink’s Perspective - Bridging Gaps To Maximise Potential 2.7 SMES (Small and Medium Enterprise)
III DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 3.1 Age Group of the Respondents 3.2 Experience of the Respondents 3.3 Gender of the Respondents 3.4 Turnover of the Respondents 3.5 Awareness of the Respondents 3.6 Purchases of the Products As Per Frequency 3.7 Preferences of the Respondents 3.8 Purchase of Same Product 3.9 Name of The Company 3.10 Reason for Purchasing 3.11 Most oftenly Purchasing Products 3.12 Problems Faced By The No Of Respondents 3.13 Problem Specified By The Respondent 3.14 Opinion on Sales Representatives Visit 3.15 Average Sales of The Products 3.16 Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic
3.17 Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder 3.18 Satisfaction Level of Analgesic 3.19 Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron 3.20 Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold 3.21 Rating of Effectiveness 3.22 Rating of Safety 3.23 Rating of Quality 3.24 Rating of Affordability 3.25 Rating of Availability 3.26 Expectation of Quality Information 3.27 Expectation of Sale Representative Visits 3.28 Expectation of New Products Information 3.29 Expectation of Credit Period Limit 3.30 Ranking of KTPL 3.31 Ranking of Ranbaxy 3.32 Ranking of Dr. Reddy 3.33 Ranking of Cipla 3.34 Rating of Oxmax 3.35 Rating of Valimax
3.36 Rating of Dibupar 3.37 Rating of Maxigel 3.38 Rating of Ominis 3.39 Total Prescription in Day 3.40 Time of Prescription 3.41 Total Products in a Single Prescription
IV FINDINGS & SUGGESTIONS
V CONCLUSION
INDEX
Chapter.No. I II III IV V VI VII
PARTICULARS Introduction Review of Literature Data Analysis and Interpretations Findings & Suggestions Conclusion Questionnaire Bibliography
List Of Tables
Table.No. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
PARTICULARS Age Group of the Respondents Experience of the Respondents Gender of the Respondents Turnover of the Respondents Awareness of the Respondents Purchases of the Products As Per Frequency
3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12
Preferences of the Respondents Purchase of Same Product Name of The Company Reason for Purchasing Most oftenly Purchasing Products Problems Faced By 44 The No Of Respondents
3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27
Problem Specified By The Respondent Opinion on Sale Representatives Visit Average Sales of The Products Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder Satisfaction Level of Analgesic Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold Rating of Effectiveness Rating of Safety Rating of Quality Rating of Affordability Rating of Availability Expectation of Quality Information Expectation of Sale Representative Visits
3.28
Expectation of New Products Information
3.29
Expectation of Credit Period Limit
3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41
Ranking of KTPL Ranking of Ranbaxy Ranking of Dr. Reddy Ranking of Cipla Rating of Oxmax Rating of Valimax Rating of Dibupar Rating of Maxigel Rating of Ominis Total Prescription in Day Time of Prescription Total Products in a Single Prescription
List Of Charts
S.No. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
PARTICULARS Age Group of the Respondents Experience of the Respondents Gender of the Respondents Turnover of the Respondents Awareness of the Respondents Purchases of the Products As Per Frequency
3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12
Preferences of the Respondents Purchase of Same Product Name of The Company Reason for Purchasing Most oftenly Purchasing Products Problems Faced By The No Of Respondents
3.13
Problem Specified By The Respondent
3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28
Problem Specified By The Respondent Opinion on Sale Representatives Visit Average Sales of The Products Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder Satisfaction Level of Analgesic Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold Rating of Effectiveness Rating of Safety Rating of Quality Rating of Affordability Rating of Availability Expectation of Quality Information Expectation of Sale Representative Visits
3.29 3.30 3.31
Expectation of New Products Information Expectation of Credit Period Limit Ranking of KTPL
3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41
Ranking of Ranbaxy Ranking of Dr. Reddy Ranking of Cipla Rating of Oxmax Rating of Valimax Rating of Dibupar Rating of Maxigel Rating of Ominis Total Prescription in Day Time of Prescription
Chapter I INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry today is in the front rank of India’s science-based industries with wide ranging capabilities in the complex field of drug manufacture and technology. A highly organized sector, the Indian Pharma Industry is estimated to be worth $ 4.5 billion, growing at about 8 to 9 percent annually. It ranks very high in the third world, in terms of technology, quality and range of medicines manufactured. From simple headache pills to sophisticated antibiotics and complex cardiac compounds, almost every type of medicine is now made indigenously. Playing a key role in promoting and sustaining development in the vital field of medicines, Indian Pharmacy Industry boasts of quality producers and many units approved by regulatory authorities in USA and UK. International companies associated with this sector have stimulated, assisted and spearheaded this dynamic development in the past 53 years and helped to put India on the pharmaceutical map of the world. The Indian Pharmaceutical sector is highly fragmented with more than 20,000 registered units. It has expanded drastically in the last two decades. The leading 250 pharmaceutical companies control 70% of the
market with market leader holding nearly 7% of the market share. It is an extremely fragmented market with severe price competition and government price control. The pharmaceutical industry in India meets around 70% of the country’s demand for bulk drugs, drug intermediates, pharmaceutical formulations, chemicals, tablets, capsules, orals and injectibles. There are about 250 large units and about 8000 Small Scale Units, which form the core of the pharmaceutical industry in India (including 5 Central Public Sector Units). These units produce the complete range of pharmaceutical formulations, i.e., medicines ready for consumption by patients and about 350 bulk, drugs. Following the de-licensing of the pharmaceutical industry, industrial licensing for most of the drugs and pharmaceutical products has been done away with. Manufacturers are free to produce any drug duly approved by the Drug Control Authority. Technologically strong and totally self-reliant, the pharmaceutical industry in India has low costs of production, low R&D costs, innovative scientific manpower, strength of national laboratories and an increasing balance of trade. The Pharmaceutical Industry, with its rich scientific talents and research capabilities, supported by Intellectual Property Protection regime is well set to take on the international market.
COMPANY PROFILE Kausikh Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. is to Manufacture and Market World Class Pharmaceutical Formulation and thereby satisfies the needs and expectation of the customers. This requires involved, dedicated efforts at all levels; the end result is building Quality at each and every level. KTPL Manufacturing Unit is awarded GMP certificate under WHO guidelines. The manufacturing unit was started in the year 1988. Presently Exporting Products to Srilanka, Cambodia, Ukraine and Malaysia.
OBJECTIVES OF THE QUALITY Each and every member of KTPL is committed to improve the QUALITY whether it is in process or services. The end result is a Quality Product. Improvement in Quality is a continuous on going process where there is always something more to achieve. KTPL’s commitment to satisfy environmental standards is total KTPL doesn’t believe in cost control by sacrificing Quality. Cost control can be achieved with improved efficiency and involvement of all concerned. KTPL is the Company that always cares for “QUALITY”. This Facility is equipped with the state of art production equipment which is further complemented by a wide range of ancillary equipment for maximum degree of product flexibility. Naturally, all manufacturing and validation procedures confirm with GMP regulations. Right from sophisticated analytical equipment in process lab to packaging machines. KTPL has the entire necessary infrastructure. Both people and plant are tailored to manufacture complex formulations with high degree of purity and environment safety. Manufacturing equipment is routinely
scrutinized and maintained.
PRODUCT PROFILE At present KTPL Manufacturing & Marketing nearly 40 Products which are well established in the market. Some of the Products are listed below: ? BIODEC Multivitamin SIC Tablets / Syrup / Drops ? NEOPLEX - C B - Complex with Vitamin C S / C Tablet ? BICLOX Ampicillin with Cloxacillin Capsules ? VALIMOX Amoxycillin with Cloxacillin Capsules ? KOLNIS De - Congestant Sustain Release Capsules
SCOPE FOR THE STUDY ? The actual scope for the study is to find out the retailer attitude towards various KTPL products. ? This study analyses market trend inharmaceutica1 industry such as sales of KTPL products awareness, price comparison, various schemes offered by different pharmaceutical companies. Beside the study also emphasizes on different views of the whole seller as well as retailer with regard to various KTPL products.
“PRODUCT SHARE MARKET ANALYSIS”
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Primary Objective: ? To find out the retailer attitude towards Mis KTPL Laboratories pvt.ltd, Chennai.
Secondary Objective: ? To identify the major ailments for which the KTPL products are being prescribed. ? To project the further growth of KTPL products. ? To analyze the performance of various products of KTPL. ? To identify the awareness level of KTPL products. ? To identify the satisfaction level of the retailer on the KTPL products.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research provides the needed information that guides managers to make informed decisions to successfully deal with problems. The research comprises defining and redefining problems, formulating hypothesis or suggested solutions; collecting, organizing, and evaluating data ,making decisions and reaching conclusions; and at last carefully testing the conclusions to determine whether they fit the formulated hypothesis.
RESEARCH DESIGN A research design is purely and simply the framework of plan for a study that guides the collection and analysis of data. The research design used here in this study is Descriptive Research Design.
RESEARCH NSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION Data refers to information or facts. It includes numerical figures, non-numerical figures, and descriptive facts and qualitative & quantitative information.
PRIMARY DATA Primary data has been collected by issuing the questionnaire and communicating with the respondents.
SECONDARY DATA Secondary data consists of the information Collected from the company and whole seller.
SAMPLING UNIT In this research the sampling units are the chemists in Tambaram, Chrompet, Pallavaram, Adambakkam, Madipakkam, and Palavanthangal.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT Research instrument used in this study is structured questionnaire. Structured questionnaire are those questionnaires in which there are definite, concrete and predetermined questions relating to the aspects, for which the researcher collected data.
QUESTIONNIARE DESIGN A structured questionnaire is framed. The questionnaire consists of close ended, open ended, multiple choice, and dichotomous, rating and ranking type of questions.
SAMPLING DESIGN Population Sample Sampling Method Infinite Subset or subgroup of population Convenience method Sample Size Sampling unit 60 The chemists in South Chennai. and non-probability sampling
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ? Non co-operation from the chemist. ? It took very long time for finding medicals shop in the interior parts. ? There is no much respond from the chemist. ? The survey is limited only to six areas given by the company. ? Time was another big constraint for the survey
Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
R&D AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT The increasing costs of developing newer molecules is borne out of the fact that it now costs US $800 million to get a drug to the market, twice as much as in 1983. Much of the money goes into final stage clinical trials. The US $70 billion that will be spent on drug R&D in 2003 will bear fruit only in 2015 and even then no one will know if the money was well spent. A new drug is considered to be successful when it attains a sale of US $1 billion in the first year of launch and is termed a blockbuster. However, there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, out of a thousand promising molecules investigated only one emerges as the winner. The reasons for attrition during drug development are shown in the chart. In the global market today patent infringent is a major cause of concern for the MNCs. It is estimated that patent infringement in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and India has cost US $167 million to US $1.5 billion, annually in royalty to research based MNCs, due to the absence of
product patents for drugs in these countries. The annual revenue from drugs that lost patent protection in 2002 was US $2.8 billion. In 2003, that figure will double to US $6 billion. SOUTH INDIA—A SNAPSHOT The small and medium sized players of Southern India uniting together have formed their trade bodies, which act as their representatives in various issues and negotiations. K Deepalakshmi finds out the role of these south centric bodies Southern states are emerging as new destination for pharma trade. Each of the four states has carved a niche by specialising a segment. The support extended by the State Governments play a major role in it. “Each state is doing well in one or more segments,” observes Dr PV Appaji, Executive Director, Pharmexcil, Hyderabad. While Andhra Pradesh excels in bulk drugs manufacturing, Bangalore is concentrating on clinical trials and clinical research ,whereas Chennai has good potential in formulation and Kerala is promoting Ayurveda and herbal products. Steady growth cannot be possible without the support of the government. This kind of support can be earned when the grievances are taken to the right ears, through unity. This is the prime reason for the birth of many trade organisations and associations, both at regional and national levels. Of them, the regional ones have a more active role to
play, as demand and solution could vary in different states. South India has given birth to several pharma and allied trade bodies, in recent times. These bodies have managed to establish themselves in a short span of time. South India is emerging as a strong pharma hub with a vibrant IT industry and strong infrastructure of research facilities and scientists. Several MNCs are starting research operations in South India, turning the region into a pharmaceutical services hotspot. Drug trials expenditure in India is expected to reach $1.5 billion by 2010, with South garnering a significant portion of this business. Hyderabad, Chennai and Bangalore are being viewed as important in sourcing centres. South India is an attractive destination since it offers availability of scientific and technical expertise, academic research facilities,
environment conducive to innovation and credibility, English language and competitive compensation. South India’s expertise in IT skills combined with strong knowledge in pharma domain is ideal for drug development and clinical research activities.
Business potential of South India Bio-cluster Bangalore is being recognised as a bio-cluster. The creation of economic clusters of biotech units is attributable to increasing returns under monopolistic competition and generation of strategic alliances. Leading companies in Karnataka include Accelrys, Advinus
Therapeutics, Agilent Technologies, Animal Biotech, Automed Systems, Avesthagen, Bharat Biotech, Bigtec, Biocon, ClinTec (India)
International, CytoGenomics, Delta Biologicals etc. The State’s biotech ventures are sustained by the presence of notable research institutes like Indian Institute of Science (IISc), National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) and Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Research (JNCAR). There is also a large presence of pharmacy-biotech graduates. Karnataka has emerged as a centre for generics, medical devices, biotech and drug discovery. The total pharma market in the State in 2006 was Rs 1,3 17 crore with 251 companies in the fray. The industry is growing at 17.82 percent. The State is active in pharma services such as bioinformatics research support services. It accounted for 55 percent of biotech companies in the country in 2006-07.
Out of a total 320 enterprises in India, Karnataka has 175 units and 158 of these are located in Bangalore. In 2005-06, out of the 28 new biotech ventures, 27 were set-up in Karnataka. In 2005- 06, the State biotech business registered a turnover of Rs 1,400 crore. Exports generated revenues to the tune of Rs 850 crore. The total scientific head count was 6,800 personnel. The presence of sophisticated corporate hospital chains in Bangalore is turning Karnataka into an important healthcare hub. Companies like GP, Wipro, Biocon, AstraZeneca, Nova Nordisk, Lumbeck, AFD and Manipal hospitals are playing a major role here. Bulk drugs Andhra Pradesh is active in bulk drugs production and biotech. The State also specialises in offering CRM solutions since it is an IT hub. It has several important institutions such as Pharmexcil, Shapoorji Biotech Park and a knowledge park promoted by ICICI. Andhra Pradesh alone contributes 9.5 percent to total Indian pharma market. The pharma market in the State is estimated to be Rs 2,900 crore growing at the rate of 14 percent. The total market size of therapeutic segments like anti-diabetes is Rs 130 crore, cardiology is Rs 331 crore, PPI is Rs 130 crore, antihistamines is Rs 51 crore,
gynaecology (nutraceuticals like calcium and iron preparations) is Rs 94 crore, and antibiotics groups like Macrolide is Rs 44 crore. Key players in the State include Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Aurobindo Pharma, Natco Pharma, Suven Pharmaceuticals, Bioloal E, Divi’s Labs, Matrix Laboratories, Hetero Drugs, Neuland Laboratories, Global Bulk Drugs and Fine Chemicals and Glochem Industries. Andhra Pradesh accounts for more than one-third of India’s total bulk drug production. A major share of the bulk drugs produced by State based companies find their way to foreign markets, resulting in high export turnover from the segment. The State has emerged as a key player not only in the export of bulk drugs but also finished formulations. It has set a production target of $8 billion by 2010 and between $10-15 billion by 2020 from the pharma sector. Good infrastructure facilities, availability of trained manpower combined with the presence of leading research and development centres like CCMB, IICT, CDFD, NIN etc make the State a fertile land for the industry to take deep roots and flourish.
Manufacturing The pharma industry in Tamil Nadu is undergoing a critical phase in its evolution. It is facing closure of several units owing to inability to comply with Schedule M norms besides the issue of migration of units to excise free zones (EFZ). The industry in the State is banking on the proposed setting up of EFZs and SEZs to boost industrial growth. The small scale industry (S SI) is pinning hopes on the cluster development programme to promote infrastructure development and boost growth. The industry also expects support from the Central Government for technological upgradation of the pharma cluster at Alathur with new facilities for R&D and industrial development. Several retail pharmacy chains have opened up in Tamil Nadu. The mushrooming of organised retail medical shops in the State has led to efforts by traditional medical shops and their associations to improve quality of service to take on the new trend. These include Macare, a company floated by the Kerala based Manappuram group and LifeKen, promoted by Lifetime Healthcare. Several contract research organizations are in the process or intending to set up facilities in South India. These include Quintiles, Parexel, Actavis and Indian companies such as Aurigene, Clinigene and Asian Clinical Trials.
Tamil Nadu is active in both ayurveda and healthcare. The State was the fourth largest producer of medicines in the country in 2006 after Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. It has several organised retail pharmacy chains. The setting up of export free zones such as the proposed 250 acre Nanguneri Pharma Park can impart a boost to the pharma industry in the State. South India: SWOT analysis Strengths ? Support from quality infrastructure and scientific institutions. ? Emergence of South India as an IT hub. ? Availability of skilled scientific manpower. ? Economic and regulatory climate conducive to innovation. ? Strong capabilities in manufacture of bulk drugs and formulations. Weaknesses ? Effective sales force for marketing. ? Demand supply gap for biotech and CR0 professionals
Opportunities ? Opportunities for export of bulk drugs in emerging markets. ? Emergence of biotechnology secr in the region. ? Opportunities in CRAMS, CROs and clinical trials. ? Opportunities for foray into global market through strategic acquisitions, joint ventures and expansion and upgradation. Threats ? Migration of units to EFZs. ? Challenges posed by globalisation such as closure of units owing to inability to comply with Schedule M norms. ? Challenges posed for Indian system of medicine due to compliance with Schedule T.
INTERLINK’S
PERSPECTIVE
-
BRIDGING
GAPS
TO
MAXIMISE POTENTIAL Growth of pharma industry in South India is hampered by absence of linkages between industry value chain parameters. This paradox exists despite abundance of skilled scientific manpower for scientific research and a vibrant IT industry which supplements and adds value to the efficiency of the pharma industry. The presence of a strong and vibrant ayurvedic industry suffuses and hampers the penetration of allopathy in the region. SMES (SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISE) Lack of entrepreneurship, ambition, drive and initiative hamper the growth of industry despite presence of requisite resources and infrastructure. Industry faces a critical funding constraint despite presence of several foreign banks and financial institutions because of lack of initiative and drive to avail these facilities. Lack of skilled manpower for marketing also hampers efforts aimed at market penetration in the region. The pharma value chain of Soui4lndia in Figure 2 describes the strategic options available for achieving long term sustainable growth and unlocking the huge potential provided they are linked together to create value.
Chapter III DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
CHAPTER II DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Age Group of the Respondents S.NO 1 2 3 4 AGE Less than 25 Between 25 - 35 Between 35 - 45 Above 45 NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 2 18 38 2 3.3 30 63.3 3.3
Age Group of the Respondents
70 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Less than 25 Between 25 - 35 Age Age Group of the Respondents Between 35 - 45 Above 45 3.3% 3.3% 30% 63.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 63% of them are between the ages of 35 to 45 years.
Experience of the Respondents S.NO NO. OF YEARS NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 2 3 Between 0 - 5 Between 5 - 10 Above 10 11 42 7 18.3 70 11.7
Experience of the Respondents
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Between 0 - 5 Between 5 - 10 Years Experience of the Respondents Above 10 18.3% 11.7% 70%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 70% of them are having experiences between 5 to 10 years.
Gender of the Respondents NO. OF RESPONDENTS 59 1
S.NO 1 2 Male
GENDER
PERCENTAGE 98.3 1.7
Female
Gender of the Respondents
120 100 Percentage 80 60 40 20 1.7% 0 Male Gender Gender of the Respondents Female 98.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 98 % of them are male.
Turnover of the Respondents NO. OF. RESPONDENTS 52 8
S.NO 1 2
TURNOVER Less than 5,00,000 Between 5,00,000 10,00,000
PERCENTAGE 86.7 13.3
Turnover of the Respondents
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Less than 5,00,000 Between 5,00,000 - 10,00,000 Turnover of the Respondents 13.3% 86.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, the turn over of 86.7% of them is less than 5, 00,000.
Awareness of the Respondents NO. OF. RESPONDENTS 60
S.NO 1
AWARENESS Yes
PERCENTAGE 100
Awareness of the Respondents
120 100 Percentage 80 60 100% 40 20 0 Yes Awareness Awareness of the Respondents 0% No
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 100 % of the respondents were aware of the products.
Purchases of the Products NO.OF YEARS 1-3 3-6 6-9 Above 9 NO. OF RESPONDENTS 15 36 7 2
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 25 60 11.7 3.3
Purchases of the Products
70 60% 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 1-3 yrs 3-6 yrs Years 6-9 yrs Above 9 yrs 25% 11.7% 3.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 60 % of the respondents are purchasing the products for 3-6 years.
Preferences of the Respondents NO. OF S.NO REASON RESPONDENTS 1 2 3 4 Quality Availability Moderate Price Delivery 4 27 22 7 6.7 45 36.7 11.7 PERCENTAGE
Preferences of the Respondents
50 45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Quality Availability Moderate Price Delivery Preferences 6.7% 11.7% 36.7% 45%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 45 % of the respondents prefer the products due to availability.
Purchase of Same Product
PURCHASE S.NO OF SAME PRODUCT 1 2 Yes No
NO. OF RESPONDENTS 53 7
PERCENTAGE
88.3 11.7
Purchase of Same Product
100 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes Same Product Purchase No 11.7% 88.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 88.3 % of the respondents are purchasing the same products from the other company.
Name of The Company COMPANY NAME Cipla Ranbaxy Dr. Reddy NO. OF RESPONDENTS 15 25 20
S.NO 1 2 3
PERCENTAGE 25 41.7 33.3
Name of the Company
45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cipla Ranbaxy Company Name Dr. Reddy 25% 33.3% 41.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 41.7 % of the respondents are purchasing the same products from the Ranbaxy.
Reason for Purchasing NO.OF RESPONDENTS 6 14 16 5 3 16
S.NO 1 2 3 4 5 6
REASON Low price Good Service Delivery High quality packing Samples
PERCENTAGE 10 23.3 26.7 8.3 5 26.7
Reason for Purchasing
30 25 Percentage 20 15 10% 10 5 0 Low price Good Service Delivery High quality packing Samples Reason 8.3% 5% 23.3% 26.7% 26.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 26.7 % of the respondents are purchasing the same products from other company due to delivery and samples.
Most oftenly Purchasing Products NO.OF S.NO REASON RESPONDENTS 1 2 3 Valimox Dibupar Maxigel 27 7 26 45 11.7 43.3 PERCENTAGE
Most oftenly Purchasing Products
50 45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Valimox Dibupar Most oftenly purchasing product Maxigel 11.7% 45% 43.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 45 % of the respondents are purchasing the Valimox most oftenly.
Problems of the respondents NO. OF S.NO PROBLEMS RESPONDENTS 1 2 Yes No 1 59 1.7 98.3 PERCENTAGE
Problems of the Respondents
120 100 Percentage 80 60 40 20 1.7% 0 Yes Problems No 98.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 98.3 % of the respondents are told that they have No problems while placing the order.
Specify Problems to The Respondents NO. OF S.NO PROBLEM RESPONDENTS 1 2 Yes No 1 59 1.7 98.3 PERCENTAGE
Specify Problems to the Respondents
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Yes Specify Problems to the Respondents No
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 1.7 % of the respondents are told that they have defect in products while placing the order.
Opinion on Sales Representatives Visit SATISFACTORY LEVEL Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 18 32 10
S.NO 1 2 3
PERCENTAGE 30 53.3 16.7
16.7%
30%
53.3%
Satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that 30% of the respondents out of 60 were satisfied with sales representative’s visit.
Average Sales of The Products NO. OF PRODUCTS Less than 5 5 -10 10 -15 Above 15 NO. OF RESPONDENTS 11 34 13 2
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 18.3 56.7 21.7 3.3
Average Sales of the Products
60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Less than 5 5 to 10 Average Sale 10 to 15 Above 15 18.3% 21.7% 56.7%
3.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that out of 60 respondents 56.7% were told that an average sale of KTPL products per day is between 5-10.
Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic SATISFACTORY LEVEL Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 3 18 39
S.NO
PERCENTAGE
1 2 3
5 30 65
Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic
70 60 50 Percentage 40 30% 30 20 10 0 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic Highly satisfied 5% 65%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, it is clear that out of 60 respondents. 65% are highly satisfied with the antibiotic products.
Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder SATISFACTORY LEVEL Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 4 44 11 1
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 6.7 73.3 18.3 1.7
Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied 6.7% 18.3% 1.7% 73.3%
Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that out of 60 respondents 73.3% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the protein powder.
Satisfaction Level of Analgesic SATISFACTORY LEVEL Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 5 10 30 15
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 8.3 16.7 50 25
Satisfaction Level of Analgesic
60 50% 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied 8.3% 16.7% 25%
Satisfaction Level of Analgesic
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that out of 60 respondents 73.3% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the analgesic products.
Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron SATISFACTORY LEVEL Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 1 5 24 30
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 1.7 8.3 40 50
Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron
60 50% 50 40% Percentage 40 30 20 10 1.7% 0 Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied 8.3%
Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that out of 60 respondents 50% are highly satisfied with the vitamins & iron products.
Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold SATISFACTORY LEVEL Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 1 7 29 23
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 1.7 11.7 48.3 38.3
Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold
60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 11.7% 10 1.7% 0 Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied 48.3% 38.3%
Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold
INTERPRETATION From the above table, it is clear that out of 60 respondents 48.3% are satisfied with the anti cold products.
Rating of Effectiveness NO. OF RESPONDENTS 54 6
S.NO 1 2
RATING Neither good nor bad Good
PERCENTAGE 90 10
Rating of Effectiveness
100 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Rating of Effectiveness Good 10% 90%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 90% were told that effectiveness of the KTPL products is neither good nor bad.
Rating of Safety NO. OF RESPONDENTS 12 43 5
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 20 71.7 8.3
Rating of Safety
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Rating of Safety Very Good 8.3% 20% 71.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 71.7% were told that safety of the KTPL products is good.
Rating of Quality NO. OF RESPONDENTS 18 30 12
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 30 50 20
Rating of Quality
60 50% 50 Percentage 40 30% 30 20% 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Rating of Quality Very Good
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 50% were told that quality of the KTPL products is good.
Rating of Affordability NO. OF RESPONDENTS 47 11 2
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 78.3 18.3 3.3
Rating of Affordability
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Rating of Affordability Very Good 18.3% 3.3% 78.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 78.3% were told that affordability of the KTPL products is neither good nor bad.
Percentage
Rating of Availability NO. OF RESPONDENTS 1 12 47
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 1.7 20 78.3
Rating of Availability
90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Rating of Availability Very Good 1.7% 20% 78.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 78.3% were told that availability of the KTPL products is neither good nor bad.
Expectation of Quality Information NO. OF RESPONDENTS 1 31 28
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 1.7 51.7 46.7
Expectation of Quality Information
60 51.7% 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 1.7% 0 Neither good nor bad Good Expectation of Quality Infrmation Very Good 46.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 51.7% are expecting the quality information as ordinary.
Expectation of Sale Representative Visits NO. OF RESPONDENTS 35 1 24
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 58.3 1.7 40
Expectation of Sale Representative Visits
70 60 50 Percentage 40% 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Very Good Expectation of Sale Representative Visits 1.7% 58.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 58.3% are expecting the sale representative visits as essential.
Expectation of New Products Information NO. OF RESPONDENTS 13 1 45 1
S.NO 1 2 3 4
EXPECTATION Essential Ordinary Important Unimportant
PERCENTAGE 21.7 1.7 75 1.7
Expectation of New Products Information
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Essential Ordinary Important Unimportant Expectation of New Products Information 1.7% 1.7% 21.7% 75%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 75% are expecting the new products information as important.
Expectation of Credit Period Limit NO. OF RESPONDENTS 2 15 1 42
S.NO 1 2 3 4
EXPECTATION Essential Ordinary Important Unimportant
PERCENTAGE 3.3 25 1.7 70
Expectation of Credit Period Limit
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Essential Ordinary Important Unimportant Expectation of Credit Period Limit 3.3% 1.7% 25% 70%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 70% are expecting the credit period limit as unimportant.
Ranking of KTPL NO. OF RESPONDENTS 4 20 15 21
S.NO 1 2 3 4
RANK 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 6.7 33.3 25 35
Ranking of KTPL
40 35 30 Percentage 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 Ranking of KTPL 3 4 6.7% 33.3% 25% 35%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 70% are raking the KTPL products in 4th place
Ranking of Ranbaxy NO. OF RESPONDENTS 32 15 8 5
S.NO 1 2 3 4
RANK 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 53.3 25 13.3 8.3
Ranking of Ranbaxy
60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 Ranking of Ranbaxy 3 4 25% 13.3% 8.3% 53.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 53.3% are ranking the Ranbaxy products in 1st place.
Ranking of Dr. Reddy NO. OF RESPONDENTS 19 11 26 4
S.NO 1 2 3 4
RANK 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 31.7 18.3 43.3 6.7
Ranking of Dr. Reddy
50 45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 Ranking of Dr. Reddy 6.7% 18.3% 31.7% 43.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 43.3% are ranking the Dr. Reddy products in 3rd place.
Ranking of Cipla NO. OF RESPONDENTS 5 14 11 30
S.NO 1 2 3 4
RANK 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 8.3 23.3 18.3 50
Ranking of Cipla
60 50% 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 Ranking of Cipla 3 4 8.3% 23.3% 18.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 50% are ranking the Cipla products in 4th place.
Rating of Oxmax NO. OF RESPONDENTS 16 43 1
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 26.7 71.7 1.7
Rating of Oxmax
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Oxmax Fast Moving 1.7% 26.7% 71.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 71.7% were told that Oxmax is slow moving.
Rating of Valimax NO. OF RESPONDENTS 3 2 55
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 5 3.3 91.7
Rating of Valimax
100 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Oxmax Fast Moving 5% 3.3% 91.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 91.4% were told that Valimax is fast moving.
Rating of Dibupar NO. OF RESPONDENTS 18 17 25
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 30 28.3 41.7
Rating of Dibupar
45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Dibupar Fast Moving 30% 28.3% 41.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 41.7% were told that Dibupar is fast moving.
Rating of Maxigel NO. OF RESPONDENTS 6 3 51
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 10 5 85
Rating of Maxigel
90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Maxigel Fast Moving 10% 5% 85%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 85% were told that Maxigel is fast moving.
Rating of Ominis NO. OF RESPONDENTS 37 20 3
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 61.7 33.3 5
Rating of Ominis
70 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Ominis Fast Moving 5% 33.3% 61.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 61.7% were told that Ominis is normal moving.
Total Prescription in Day NO. OF NO. OF
S.NO 1 2
PRESCRIPTIONS RESPONDENTS Less than 50 50 - 100 58 2
PERCENTAGE 96.7 3.3
Total Prescription in Day
120 100 Percentage 80 60 40 20 3.3% 0 Normal Moving Total Prescription in Day Slow Moving 96.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 96.7% were told that total prescription per day is less than 50.
Time of Prescription TIME OF PRESCRIPTION On the day of sale person All the days After 2 or 3 days of sale person visits NO. OF RESPONDENTS 3 44 13
S.NO
PERCENTAGE
1 2 3
5 73.3 21.7
Time of Prescription
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 On the day of sale person All the days Total Prescription in Day After 2 or 3 days of sale person visits 5% 21.7% 73.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 73.3% were told that time of prescription for KTPL products in all the days.
Total Products in a Single Prescription TIME OF PRESCRIPTION Less than 3 3–6 Above 6 NO. OF RESPONDENTS 31 28 1
S.NO 1 2 3
PERCENTAGE 51.7 46.7 1.7
Total Products in a Single Prescription
60 51.7% 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 1.7% 0 Less than 3 3–6 Total Products in a Single Prescription Above 6 46.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 51.7% were told that total products in a single prescription for KTPL products.
Chapter IV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
CHAPTER-IV FINDINGS
? 60% of the respondents are purchasing the KTPL products for 3-6 years. ? 70% of the respondents are having experiences between 5 to 10 years. ? 30% of the respondents were satisfied with the sale representative. ? 45 % of the respondents prefer the products due to availability. ? 72% of the respondents have very good opinion on availability of the KTPL products. ? 98.3 % of the respondents are told that they have No problems while placing the order. ? 75% of the respondents were expecting the new products information. ? 58% of the respondents were expecting the sale representative visits. ? 65% are highly satisfied with the antibiotic products. ? 18% are satisfied with the protein powder. ? 50% are highly satisfied with the vitamins & iron products. ? 48.3% are satisfied with the anti cold products. ? 73% of the respondents are getting the prescription of KTPL products in all the days.
SUGGESTIONS
? The company should arrange regular medical representative’s visit. ? Cost information and new product information to be provided. ? New schemes and offers to be implemented by KTPL to get maximum attention from the retailer. ? The company must concentrate on the Anti- cold, Protein powder, injection products to improve the sale.
V CONCLUSION
V. CONCLUSION After carefully analyzing the data, I would like to state that the KTPL products are moving well in the market. According to the opinion of the chemist the cost of KTPL products are extremely high, many chemist need more benefits and services. The regular sale representative visit and new products information are greatly needed by chemist.
Vi QUESTIONNAIRE
A Study on “PRODUCT SHARE MARKET ANALYSIS” with Reference to “KTPL Laboratories Pvt Ltd” in South Chennai
QUESTIONNAIRE Name of the shop Name of the owner Age Experience Gender Annual turnover : : :i) Less than 25 ii) 25-35 iii) 35-45 iv) Abov 45 : i) 0-5 years ii) 5-10 years iii) Above 10 years : Male/Female : i) Less than 5,00,000 ii) 5,00,000-10,00,000 iii) Above 10,00,000
1) Are you aware of KTPL products? i) Yes ii) No
2) How long you are purchasing the KTPL products? i) 1-3 years ii) 3-6 years iii) 6-9 years iv) Above 9 years
3) Why do you prefer the KTPL products? i) Quality iv) Services ii)Availability v) Delivery iii)Moderate price vi) samples
4) Do you purchase the same products from any other company? i) Yes. ii) no
i) If yes specify the name i) Cipla ii) Ranbaxy iii)Dr.Reddy
ii) Why you purchase from that company? i) Low price iv) High quality ii) Good service v) packing iii) Delivery vi) samples
5) Which Products of KTPL you place most oftenly? i) Omax iv) Maxigel ii) Valimox v) Ominis iii) Dibupar
6) Have you faced any problems with the order or delivery? i) Yes ii) No
i) If Yes specify the problem i) Late Delivery iii) Defects in products ii) Poor Packing iv) Others
7) What is your opinion regarding sale representatives visits? i) Highly Satisfied Dissatisfied iv) Dissatisfied ii) Satisfied iii) Neither Satisfied Nor
v) Highly Dissatisfied
8) How many prescription would you get for the KTPL products per day on an average? i) Less than 5 ii) 5-10 iii) 10-15 iv) 15 and Above
9) Satisfaction level KTPL products?
Products Highly Range Satisfie d
Satisfie d
Neither Dissatisfie HighlySatisfie Satisfied d d nor Dissatisfie d
Antibioti c Protein Powder Analgesi c Vitamins and Iron Anticold 10) Rate the KTPL products
Reason
Very Good
Good Neither Good nor Bad
Bad
Very Bad
Effectiveness Safety Quality Affordability Availability
11) Rate Importance of Expectation from KTPL
Expectation To provide quality information Regular sale representative visits New products information Credit period limit
Essential
Ordinary
Important
NonImportant
12) Rank the company on the basis of doctor’s prescription. i) KTPL [ ] ii) Ranbaxy [ ] iii) Dr. Reddy [ ] iv) Cipla [ ]
13) Rate the KTPL Products
Products Omax Valimox Dibupar Maxigel Ominis
Normal Moving Slow Moving
Fast Moving
14) How many prescription you get per day in total? i) Less than 50 ii) 50-100 iii) 100nd Above
15) When you get prescription? i) Only on that day when the medical representative visits ii) Sparingly all the days of the months iii) For two to three day around the medical representative visits
16) How many KTPL products in one single prescription? i) Less than 3 ii) 3-6 iii) 6 and above
Vii. BIBLIOGRAPY
REFERENCES
Books Referred
C.R.Kothari,” Research Methodology”, Wishva Prakashan, New Delhi, (2001).
Uma Sekaran,” Research Methods Of Business, Wiley India Private Limited, New Delhi, (2007), Fourth Edition.
Gurdev Singh Thakur and Supreet Babrah,” Marketing Research”, Kalyani Publishers, (2009) New Delhi – 110 002.
Websites
www.Google.com www.KTPLlabs.com www.theindiastreet.com www.hindustantimes.com www.thehindubusinessline.com
doc_837425015.docx
It is an mrktng Project
A Study on “PRODUCT SHARE MARKET ANALYSIS” with Reference to “KTPL Laboratories Pvt Ltd” in South chennai
Project Report Submitted To “The SRM University, School of Management” In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Award Of Degree “Master Of Business Administration” (MBA)
Submited by G. Aashish Jain (3511110589) G. Manoj Kumar (3511110594) N. Vignesh (3511110596) R. Arun Kumar (3511110606)
DEPARTMENT SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SRM UNIVERSITY, KATTANKULLATUR (2011-2013)
CERTIFICATE
Certified That This Project Report On “A STUDY ON THE PRODUCT SHARE MARKET ANALYSIS” WITH REFERENCE IN “KAUSIKH THERAPEUTICS (P) LTD” Is A Bonafide Record Of Work Done By
G. Aashish Jain (3511110589) G. Manoj Kumar (3511110594) N. Vignesh (3511110596) R. Arun Kumar (3511110606)
Under My Supervision and Submitted To The Madras University in Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Award Of The Degree Of Master Of Business Administration During The Academic Year (2011-2013).
Signature Of The Guide
Signature Of The Dean
VIVA VOCE EXAMINATION
This Report Is A Partial Fulfillment Of The Master Of Business Administration Course Submitted For Viva Voce Examination Held At Srm University, Kattankullatur.
G. Aashish Jain (3511110589) G. Manoj Kumar (3511110594) N. Vignesh (3511110596) R. Arun Kumar (3511110606)
Internal Examiner
External Examiner
DECLARATION
We, G. Aashish Jain (3511110589), G. Manoj Kumar (3511110594), N. Vignesh (3511110596), R. Arun Kumar (3511110606) Here By Declare That The Project Entitled “A Study On Product Share Market Analysis” Reference With “Kausikh Therapeutics (P) LTD” Submitted For The Master Of Business Administration Is Our Original Work And Has Now Formed The Basis For The Award Of Degree.
Place:
Date:
__________________________________________
Signatures
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Industry Profile 1.2 Company Profile 1.2.1 Objectives Of The Quality as the Primary Objective 1.3 Product Profile 1.4 Objectives Of The Study 1.4.1 Primary Objective 1.4.2 Secondary Objective 1.5 Research Methodology 1.6 Research Design 1.7 Data Collection and Research Instrument 1.7.1 Primary Data 1.7.2 Secondary Data 1.8 Sampling Unit 1.9 Research Instrument 1.10 Questionniare Design
1.11 Sampling Design 1.12 Scope For the Study 1.13 Limitations of the Study
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 R&D And Patent Infringement 2.2 South India—A Snapshot 2.3 Business Potential of South India 2.3 1 Bio-cluster 2.3 2 Bulk drugs 2.4 Manufacturing 2.5 South India: SWOT analysis 2.5 1 Strengths 2.5 2 Weaknesses 2.5 3 Opportunities 2.5 4 Threats 2.6 Interlink’s Perspective - Bridging Gaps To Maximise Potential 2.7 SMES (Small and Medium Enterprise)
III DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 3.1 Age Group of the Respondents 3.2 Experience of the Respondents 3.3 Gender of the Respondents 3.4 Turnover of the Respondents 3.5 Awareness of the Respondents 3.6 Purchases of the Products As Per Frequency 3.7 Preferences of the Respondents 3.8 Purchase of Same Product 3.9 Name of The Company 3.10 Reason for Purchasing 3.11 Most oftenly Purchasing Products 3.12 Problems Faced By The No Of Respondents 3.13 Problem Specified By The Respondent 3.14 Opinion on Sales Representatives Visit 3.15 Average Sales of The Products 3.16 Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic
3.17 Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder 3.18 Satisfaction Level of Analgesic 3.19 Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron 3.20 Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold 3.21 Rating of Effectiveness 3.22 Rating of Safety 3.23 Rating of Quality 3.24 Rating of Affordability 3.25 Rating of Availability 3.26 Expectation of Quality Information 3.27 Expectation of Sale Representative Visits 3.28 Expectation of New Products Information 3.29 Expectation of Credit Period Limit 3.30 Ranking of KTPL 3.31 Ranking of Ranbaxy 3.32 Ranking of Dr. Reddy 3.33 Ranking of Cipla 3.34 Rating of Oxmax 3.35 Rating of Valimax
3.36 Rating of Dibupar 3.37 Rating of Maxigel 3.38 Rating of Ominis 3.39 Total Prescription in Day 3.40 Time of Prescription 3.41 Total Products in a Single Prescription
IV FINDINGS & SUGGESTIONS
V CONCLUSION
INDEX
Chapter.No. I II III IV V VI VII
PARTICULARS Introduction Review of Literature Data Analysis and Interpretations Findings & Suggestions Conclusion Questionnaire Bibliography
List Of Tables
Table.No. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
PARTICULARS Age Group of the Respondents Experience of the Respondents Gender of the Respondents Turnover of the Respondents Awareness of the Respondents Purchases of the Products As Per Frequency
3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12
Preferences of the Respondents Purchase of Same Product Name of The Company Reason for Purchasing Most oftenly Purchasing Products Problems Faced By 44 The No Of Respondents
3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27
Problem Specified By The Respondent Opinion on Sale Representatives Visit Average Sales of The Products Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder Satisfaction Level of Analgesic Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold Rating of Effectiveness Rating of Safety Rating of Quality Rating of Affordability Rating of Availability Expectation of Quality Information Expectation of Sale Representative Visits
3.28
Expectation of New Products Information
3.29
Expectation of Credit Period Limit
3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41
Ranking of KTPL Ranking of Ranbaxy Ranking of Dr. Reddy Ranking of Cipla Rating of Oxmax Rating of Valimax Rating of Dibupar Rating of Maxigel Rating of Ominis Total Prescription in Day Time of Prescription Total Products in a Single Prescription
List Of Charts
S.No. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
PARTICULARS Age Group of the Respondents Experience of the Respondents Gender of the Respondents Turnover of the Respondents Awareness of the Respondents Purchases of the Products As Per Frequency
3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12
Preferences of the Respondents Purchase of Same Product Name of The Company Reason for Purchasing Most oftenly Purchasing Products Problems Faced By The No Of Respondents
3.13
Problem Specified By The Respondent
3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28
Problem Specified By The Respondent Opinion on Sale Representatives Visit Average Sales of The Products Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder Satisfaction Level of Analgesic Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold Rating of Effectiveness Rating of Safety Rating of Quality Rating of Affordability Rating of Availability Expectation of Quality Information Expectation of Sale Representative Visits
3.29 3.30 3.31
Expectation of New Products Information Expectation of Credit Period Limit Ranking of KTPL
3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41
Ranking of Ranbaxy Ranking of Dr. Reddy Ranking of Cipla Rating of Oxmax Rating of Valimax Rating of Dibupar Rating of Maxigel Rating of Ominis Total Prescription in Day Time of Prescription
Chapter I INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry today is in the front rank of India’s science-based industries with wide ranging capabilities in the complex field of drug manufacture and technology. A highly organized sector, the Indian Pharma Industry is estimated to be worth $ 4.5 billion, growing at about 8 to 9 percent annually. It ranks very high in the third world, in terms of technology, quality and range of medicines manufactured. From simple headache pills to sophisticated antibiotics and complex cardiac compounds, almost every type of medicine is now made indigenously. Playing a key role in promoting and sustaining development in the vital field of medicines, Indian Pharmacy Industry boasts of quality producers and many units approved by regulatory authorities in USA and UK. International companies associated with this sector have stimulated, assisted and spearheaded this dynamic development in the past 53 years and helped to put India on the pharmaceutical map of the world. The Indian Pharmaceutical sector is highly fragmented with more than 20,000 registered units. It has expanded drastically in the last two decades. The leading 250 pharmaceutical companies control 70% of the
market with market leader holding nearly 7% of the market share. It is an extremely fragmented market with severe price competition and government price control. The pharmaceutical industry in India meets around 70% of the country’s demand for bulk drugs, drug intermediates, pharmaceutical formulations, chemicals, tablets, capsules, orals and injectibles. There are about 250 large units and about 8000 Small Scale Units, which form the core of the pharmaceutical industry in India (including 5 Central Public Sector Units). These units produce the complete range of pharmaceutical formulations, i.e., medicines ready for consumption by patients and about 350 bulk, drugs. Following the de-licensing of the pharmaceutical industry, industrial licensing for most of the drugs and pharmaceutical products has been done away with. Manufacturers are free to produce any drug duly approved by the Drug Control Authority. Technologically strong and totally self-reliant, the pharmaceutical industry in India has low costs of production, low R&D costs, innovative scientific manpower, strength of national laboratories and an increasing balance of trade. The Pharmaceutical Industry, with its rich scientific talents and research capabilities, supported by Intellectual Property Protection regime is well set to take on the international market.
COMPANY PROFILE Kausikh Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. is to Manufacture and Market World Class Pharmaceutical Formulation and thereby satisfies the needs and expectation of the customers. This requires involved, dedicated efforts at all levels; the end result is building Quality at each and every level. KTPL Manufacturing Unit is awarded GMP certificate under WHO guidelines. The manufacturing unit was started in the year 1988. Presently Exporting Products to Srilanka, Cambodia, Ukraine and Malaysia.
OBJECTIVES OF THE QUALITY Each and every member of KTPL is committed to improve the QUALITY whether it is in process or services. The end result is a Quality Product. Improvement in Quality is a continuous on going process where there is always something more to achieve. KTPL’s commitment to satisfy environmental standards is total KTPL doesn’t believe in cost control by sacrificing Quality. Cost control can be achieved with improved efficiency and involvement of all concerned. KTPL is the Company that always cares for “QUALITY”. This Facility is equipped with the state of art production equipment which is further complemented by a wide range of ancillary equipment for maximum degree of product flexibility. Naturally, all manufacturing and validation procedures confirm with GMP regulations. Right from sophisticated analytical equipment in process lab to packaging machines. KTPL has the entire necessary infrastructure. Both people and plant are tailored to manufacture complex formulations with high degree of purity and environment safety. Manufacturing equipment is routinely
scrutinized and maintained.
PRODUCT PROFILE At present KTPL Manufacturing & Marketing nearly 40 Products which are well established in the market. Some of the Products are listed below: ? BIODEC Multivitamin SIC Tablets / Syrup / Drops ? NEOPLEX - C B - Complex with Vitamin C S / C Tablet ? BICLOX Ampicillin with Cloxacillin Capsules ? VALIMOX Amoxycillin with Cloxacillin Capsules ? KOLNIS De - Congestant Sustain Release Capsules
SCOPE FOR THE STUDY ? The actual scope for the study is to find out the retailer attitude towards various KTPL products. ? This study analyses market trend inharmaceutica1 industry such as sales of KTPL products awareness, price comparison, various schemes offered by different pharmaceutical companies. Beside the study also emphasizes on different views of the whole seller as well as retailer with regard to various KTPL products.
“PRODUCT SHARE MARKET ANALYSIS”
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Primary Objective: ? To find out the retailer attitude towards Mis KTPL Laboratories pvt.ltd, Chennai.
Secondary Objective: ? To identify the major ailments for which the KTPL products are being prescribed. ? To project the further growth of KTPL products. ? To analyze the performance of various products of KTPL. ? To identify the awareness level of KTPL products. ? To identify the satisfaction level of the retailer on the KTPL products.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research provides the needed information that guides managers to make informed decisions to successfully deal with problems. The research comprises defining and redefining problems, formulating hypothesis or suggested solutions; collecting, organizing, and evaluating data ,making decisions and reaching conclusions; and at last carefully testing the conclusions to determine whether they fit the formulated hypothesis.
RESEARCH DESIGN A research design is purely and simply the framework of plan for a study that guides the collection and analysis of data. The research design used here in this study is Descriptive Research Design.
RESEARCH NSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION Data refers to information or facts. It includes numerical figures, non-numerical figures, and descriptive facts and qualitative & quantitative information.
PRIMARY DATA Primary data has been collected by issuing the questionnaire and communicating with the respondents.
SECONDARY DATA Secondary data consists of the information Collected from the company and whole seller.
SAMPLING UNIT In this research the sampling units are the chemists in Tambaram, Chrompet, Pallavaram, Adambakkam, Madipakkam, and Palavanthangal.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT Research instrument used in this study is structured questionnaire. Structured questionnaire are those questionnaires in which there are definite, concrete and predetermined questions relating to the aspects, for which the researcher collected data.
QUESTIONNIARE DESIGN A structured questionnaire is framed. The questionnaire consists of close ended, open ended, multiple choice, and dichotomous, rating and ranking type of questions.
SAMPLING DESIGN Population Sample Sampling Method Infinite Subset or subgroup of population Convenience method Sample Size Sampling unit 60 The chemists in South Chennai. and non-probability sampling
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ? Non co-operation from the chemist. ? It took very long time for finding medicals shop in the interior parts. ? There is no much respond from the chemist. ? The survey is limited only to six areas given by the company. ? Time was another big constraint for the survey
Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
R&D AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT The increasing costs of developing newer molecules is borne out of the fact that it now costs US $800 million to get a drug to the market, twice as much as in 1983. Much of the money goes into final stage clinical trials. The US $70 billion that will be spent on drug R&D in 2003 will bear fruit only in 2015 and even then no one will know if the money was well spent. A new drug is considered to be successful when it attains a sale of US $1 billion in the first year of launch and is termed a blockbuster. However, there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, out of a thousand promising molecules investigated only one emerges as the winner. The reasons for attrition during drug development are shown in the chart. In the global market today patent infringent is a major cause of concern for the MNCs. It is estimated that patent infringement in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and India has cost US $167 million to US $1.5 billion, annually in royalty to research based MNCs, due to the absence of
product patents for drugs in these countries. The annual revenue from drugs that lost patent protection in 2002 was US $2.8 billion. In 2003, that figure will double to US $6 billion. SOUTH INDIA—A SNAPSHOT The small and medium sized players of Southern India uniting together have formed their trade bodies, which act as their representatives in various issues and negotiations. K Deepalakshmi finds out the role of these south centric bodies Southern states are emerging as new destination for pharma trade. Each of the four states has carved a niche by specialising a segment. The support extended by the State Governments play a major role in it. “Each state is doing well in one or more segments,” observes Dr PV Appaji, Executive Director, Pharmexcil, Hyderabad. While Andhra Pradesh excels in bulk drugs manufacturing, Bangalore is concentrating on clinical trials and clinical research ,whereas Chennai has good potential in formulation and Kerala is promoting Ayurveda and herbal products. Steady growth cannot be possible without the support of the government. This kind of support can be earned when the grievances are taken to the right ears, through unity. This is the prime reason for the birth of many trade organisations and associations, both at regional and national levels. Of them, the regional ones have a more active role to
play, as demand and solution could vary in different states. South India has given birth to several pharma and allied trade bodies, in recent times. These bodies have managed to establish themselves in a short span of time. South India is emerging as a strong pharma hub with a vibrant IT industry and strong infrastructure of research facilities and scientists. Several MNCs are starting research operations in South India, turning the region into a pharmaceutical services hotspot. Drug trials expenditure in India is expected to reach $1.5 billion by 2010, with South garnering a significant portion of this business. Hyderabad, Chennai and Bangalore are being viewed as important in sourcing centres. South India is an attractive destination since it offers availability of scientific and technical expertise, academic research facilities,
environment conducive to innovation and credibility, English language and competitive compensation. South India’s expertise in IT skills combined with strong knowledge in pharma domain is ideal for drug development and clinical research activities.
Business potential of South India Bio-cluster Bangalore is being recognised as a bio-cluster. The creation of economic clusters of biotech units is attributable to increasing returns under monopolistic competition and generation of strategic alliances. Leading companies in Karnataka include Accelrys, Advinus
Therapeutics, Agilent Technologies, Animal Biotech, Automed Systems, Avesthagen, Bharat Biotech, Bigtec, Biocon, ClinTec (India)
International, CytoGenomics, Delta Biologicals etc. The State’s biotech ventures are sustained by the presence of notable research institutes like Indian Institute of Science (IISc), National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) and Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Research (JNCAR). There is also a large presence of pharmacy-biotech graduates. Karnataka has emerged as a centre for generics, medical devices, biotech and drug discovery. The total pharma market in the State in 2006 was Rs 1,3 17 crore with 251 companies in the fray. The industry is growing at 17.82 percent. The State is active in pharma services such as bioinformatics research support services. It accounted for 55 percent of biotech companies in the country in 2006-07.
Out of a total 320 enterprises in India, Karnataka has 175 units and 158 of these are located in Bangalore. In 2005-06, out of the 28 new biotech ventures, 27 were set-up in Karnataka. In 2005- 06, the State biotech business registered a turnover of Rs 1,400 crore. Exports generated revenues to the tune of Rs 850 crore. The total scientific head count was 6,800 personnel. The presence of sophisticated corporate hospital chains in Bangalore is turning Karnataka into an important healthcare hub. Companies like GP, Wipro, Biocon, AstraZeneca, Nova Nordisk, Lumbeck, AFD and Manipal hospitals are playing a major role here. Bulk drugs Andhra Pradesh is active in bulk drugs production and biotech. The State also specialises in offering CRM solutions since it is an IT hub. It has several important institutions such as Pharmexcil, Shapoorji Biotech Park and a knowledge park promoted by ICICI. Andhra Pradesh alone contributes 9.5 percent to total Indian pharma market. The pharma market in the State is estimated to be Rs 2,900 crore growing at the rate of 14 percent. The total market size of therapeutic segments like anti-diabetes is Rs 130 crore, cardiology is Rs 331 crore, PPI is Rs 130 crore, antihistamines is Rs 51 crore,
gynaecology (nutraceuticals like calcium and iron preparations) is Rs 94 crore, and antibiotics groups like Macrolide is Rs 44 crore. Key players in the State include Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Aurobindo Pharma, Natco Pharma, Suven Pharmaceuticals, Bioloal E, Divi’s Labs, Matrix Laboratories, Hetero Drugs, Neuland Laboratories, Global Bulk Drugs and Fine Chemicals and Glochem Industries. Andhra Pradesh accounts for more than one-third of India’s total bulk drug production. A major share of the bulk drugs produced by State based companies find their way to foreign markets, resulting in high export turnover from the segment. The State has emerged as a key player not only in the export of bulk drugs but also finished formulations. It has set a production target of $8 billion by 2010 and between $10-15 billion by 2020 from the pharma sector. Good infrastructure facilities, availability of trained manpower combined with the presence of leading research and development centres like CCMB, IICT, CDFD, NIN etc make the State a fertile land for the industry to take deep roots and flourish.
Manufacturing The pharma industry in Tamil Nadu is undergoing a critical phase in its evolution. It is facing closure of several units owing to inability to comply with Schedule M norms besides the issue of migration of units to excise free zones (EFZ). The industry in the State is banking on the proposed setting up of EFZs and SEZs to boost industrial growth. The small scale industry (S SI) is pinning hopes on the cluster development programme to promote infrastructure development and boost growth. The industry also expects support from the Central Government for technological upgradation of the pharma cluster at Alathur with new facilities for R&D and industrial development. Several retail pharmacy chains have opened up in Tamil Nadu. The mushrooming of organised retail medical shops in the State has led to efforts by traditional medical shops and their associations to improve quality of service to take on the new trend. These include Macare, a company floated by the Kerala based Manappuram group and LifeKen, promoted by Lifetime Healthcare. Several contract research organizations are in the process or intending to set up facilities in South India. These include Quintiles, Parexel, Actavis and Indian companies such as Aurigene, Clinigene and Asian Clinical Trials.
Tamil Nadu is active in both ayurveda and healthcare. The State was the fourth largest producer of medicines in the country in 2006 after Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. It has several organised retail pharmacy chains. The setting up of export free zones such as the proposed 250 acre Nanguneri Pharma Park can impart a boost to the pharma industry in the State. South India: SWOT analysis Strengths ? Support from quality infrastructure and scientific institutions. ? Emergence of South India as an IT hub. ? Availability of skilled scientific manpower. ? Economic and regulatory climate conducive to innovation. ? Strong capabilities in manufacture of bulk drugs and formulations. Weaknesses ? Effective sales force for marketing. ? Demand supply gap for biotech and CR0 professionals
Opportunities ? Opportunities for export of bulk drugs in emerging markets. ? Emergence of biotechnology secr in the region. ? Opportunities in CRAMS, CROs and clinical trials. ? Opportunities for foray into global market through strategic acquisitions, joint ventures and expansion and upgradation. Threats ? Migration of units to EFZs. ? Challenges posed by globalisation such as closure of units owing to inability to comply with Schedule M norms. ? Challenges posed for Indian system of medicine due to compliance with Schedule T.
INTERLINK’S
PERSPECTIVE
-
BRIDGING
GAPS
TO
MAXIMISE POTENTIAL Growth of pharma industry in South India is hampered by absence of linkages between industry value chain parameters. This paradox exists despite abundance of skilled scientific manpower for scientific research and a vibrant IT industry which supplements and adds value to the efficiency of the pharma industry. The presence of a strong and vibrant ayurvedic industry suffuses and hampers the penetration of allopathy in the region. SMES (SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISE) Lack of entrepreneurship, ambition, drive and initiative hamper the growth of industry despite presence of requisite resources and infrastructure. Industry faces a critical funding constraint despite presence of several foreign banks and financial institutions because of lack of initiative and drive to avail these facilities. Lack of skilled manpower for marketing also hampers efforts aimed at market penetration in the region. The pharma value chain of Soui4lndia in Figure 2 describes the strategic options available for achieving long term sustainable growth and unlocking the huge potential provided they are linked together to create value.
Chapter III DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
CHAPTER II DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Age Group of the Respondents S.NO 1 2 3 4 AGE Less than 25 Between 25 - 35 Between 35 - 45 Above 45 NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 2 18 38 2 3.3 30 63.3 3.3
Age Group of the Respondents
70 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Less than 25 Between 25 - 35 Age Age Group of the Respondents Between 35 - 45 Above 45 3.3% 3.3% 30% 63.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 63% of them are between the ages of 35 to 45 years.
Experience of the Respondents S.NO NO. OF YEARS NO.OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE 1 2 3 Between 0 - 5 Between 5 - 10 Above 10 11 42 7 18.3 70 11.7
Experience of the Respondents
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Between 0 - 5 Between 5 - 10 Years Experience of the Respondents Above 10 18.3% 11.7% 70%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 70% of them are having experiences between 5 to 10 years.
Gender of the Respondents NO. OF RESPONDENTS 59 1
S.NO 1 2 Male
GENDER
PERCENTAGE 98.3 1.7
Female
Gender of the Respondents
120 100 Percentage 80 60 40 20 1.7% 0 Male Gender Gender of the Respondents Female 98.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 98 % of them are male.
Turnover of the Respondents NO. OF. RESPONDENTS 52 8
S.NO 1 2
TURNOVER Less than 5,00,000 Between 5,00,000 10,00,000
PERCENTAGE 86.7 13.3
Turnover of the Respondents
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Less than 5,00,000 Between 5,00,000 - 10,00,000 Turnover of the Respondents 13.3% 86.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, the turn over of 86.7% of them is less than 5, 00,000.
Awareness of the Respondents NO. OF. RESPONDENTS 60
S.NO 1
AWARENESS Yes
PERCENTAGE 100
Awareness of the Respondents
120 100 Percentage 80 60 100% 40 20 0 Yes Awareness Awareness of the Respondents 0% No
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 100 % of the respondents were aware of the products.
Purchases of the Products NO.OF YEARS 1-3 3-6 6-9 Above 9 NO. OF RESPONDENTS 15 36 7 2
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 25 60 11.7 3.3
Purchases of the Products
70 60% 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 1-3 yrs 3-6 yrs Years 6-9 yrs Above 9 yrs 25% 11.7% 3.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 60 % of the respondents are purchasing the products for 3-6 years.
Preferences of the Respondents NO. OF S.NO REASON RESPONDENTS 1 2 3 4 Quality Availability Moderate Price Delivery 4 27 22 7 6.7 45 36.7 11.7 PERCENTAGE
Preferences of the Respondents
50 45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Quality Availability Moderate Price Delivery Preferences 6.7% 11.7% 36.7% 45%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 45 % of the respondents prefer the products due to availability.
Purchase of Same Product
PURCHASE S.NO OF SAME PRODUCT 1 2 Yes No
NO. OF RESPONDENTS 53 7
PERCENTAGE
88.3 11.7
Purchase of Same Product
100 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes Same Product Purchase No 11.7% 88.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 88.3 % of the respondents are purchasing the same products from the other company.
Name of The Company COMPANY NAME Cipla Ranbaxy Dr. Reddy NO. OF RESPONDENTS 15 25 20
S.NO 1 2 3
PERCENTAGE 25 41.7 33.3
Name of the Company
45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cipla Ranbaxy Company Name Dr. Reddy 25% 33.3% 41.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 41.7 % of the respondents are purchasing the same products from the Ranbaxy.
Reason for Purchasing NO.OF RESPONDENTS 6 14 16 5 3 16
S.NO 1 2 3 4 5 6
REASON Low price Good Service Delivery High quality packing Samples
PERCENTAGE 10 23.3 26.7 8.3 5 26.7
Reason for Purchasing
30 25 Percentage 20 15 10% 10 5 0 Low price Good Service Delivery High quality packing Samples Reason 8.3% 5% 23.3% 26.7% 26.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 26.7 % of the respondents are purchasing the same products from other company due to delivery and samples.
Most oftenly Purchasing Products NO.OF S.NO REASON RESPONDENTS 1 2 3 Valimox Dibupar Maxigel 27 7 26 45 11.7 43.3 PERCENTAGE
Most oftenly Purchasing Products
50 45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Valimox Dibupar Most oftenly purchasing product Maxigel 11.7% 45% 43.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 45 % of the respondents are purchasing the Valimox most oftenly.
Problems of the respondents NO. OF S.NO PROBLEMS RESPONDENTS 1 2 Yes No 1 59 1.7 98.3 PERCENTAGE
Problems of the Respondents
120 100 Percentage 80 60 40 20 1.7% 0 Yes Problems No 98.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 98.3 % of the respondents are told that they have No problems while placing the order.
Specify Problems to The Respondents NO. OF S.NO PROBLEM RESPONDENTS 1 2 Yes No 1 59 1.7 98.3 PERCENTAGE
Specify Problems to the Respondents
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Yes Specify Problems to the Respondents No
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents, 1.7 % of the respondents are told that they have defect in products while placing the order.
Opinion on Sales Representatives Visit SATISFACTORY LEVEL Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 18 32 10
S.NO 1 2 3
PERCENTAGE 30 53.3 16.7
16.7%
30%
53.3%
Satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that 30% of the respondents out of 60 were satisfied with sales representative’s visit.
Average Sales of The Products NO. OF PRODUCTS Less than 5 5 -10 10 -15 Above 15 NO. OF RESPONDENTS 11 34 13 2
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 18.3 56.7 21.7 3.3
Average Sales of the Products
60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Less than 5 5 to 10 Average Sale 10 to 15 Above 15 18.3% 21.7% 56.7%
3.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that out of 60 respondents 56.7% were told that an average sale of KTPL products per day is between 5-10.
Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic SATISFACTORY LEVEL Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 3 18 39
S.NO
PERCENTAGE
1 2 3
5 30 65
Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic
70 60 50 Percentage 40 30% 30 20 10 0 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfaction Level of Antibiotic Highly satisfied 5% 65%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, it is clear that out of 60 respondents. 65% are highly satisfied with the antibiotic products.
Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder SATISFACTORY LEVEL Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 4 44 11 1
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 6.7 73.3 18.3 1.7
Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied 6.7% 18.3% 1.7% 73.3%
Satisfaction Level of Protein Powder
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that out of 60 respondents 73.3% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the protein powder.
Satisfaction Level of Analgesic SATISFACTORY LEVEL Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 5 10 30 15
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 8.3 16.7 50 25
Satisfaction Level of Analgesic
60 50% 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied 8.3% 16.7% 25%
Satisfaction Level of Analgesic
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that out of 60 respondents 73.3% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the analgesic products.
Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron SATISFACTORY LEVEL Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 1 5 24 30
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 1.7 8.3 40 50
Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron
60 50% 50 40% Percentage 40 30 20 10 1.7% 0 Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied 8.3%
Satisfaction Level of Vitamin and Iron
INTERPRETATION From the above table it is clear that out of 60 respondents 50% are highly satisfied with the vitamins & iron products.
Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold SATISFACTORY LEVEL Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied NO. OF RESPONDENTS 1 7 29 23
S.NO 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 1.7 11.7 48.3 38.3
Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold
60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 11.7% 10 1.7% 0 Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied Highly satisfied 48.3% 38.3%
Satisfaction Level of Anti Cold
INTERPRETATION From the above table, it is clear that out of 60 respondents 48.3% are satisfied with the anti cold products.
Rating of Effectiveness NO. OF RESPONDENTS 54 6
S.NO 1 2
RATING Neither good nor bad Good
PERCENTAGE 90 10
Rating of Effectiveness
100 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Rating of Effectiveness Good 10% 90%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 90% were told that effectiveness of the KTPL products is neither good nor bad.
Rating of Safety NO. OF RESPONDENTS 12 43 5
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 20 71.7 8.3
Rating of Safety
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Rating of Safety Very Good 8.3% 20% 71.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 71.7% were told that safety of the KTPL products is good.
Rating of Quality NO. OF RESPONDENTS 18 30 12
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 30 50 20
Rating of Quality
60 50% 50 Percentage 40 30% 30 20% 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Rating of Quality Very Good
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 50% were told that quality of the KTPL products is good.
Rating of Affordability NO. OF RESPONDENTS 47 11 2
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 78.3 18.3 3.3
Rating of Affordability
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Rating of Affordability Very Good 18.3% 3.3% 78.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 78.3% were told that affordability of the KTPL products is neither good nor bad.
Percentage
Rating of Availability NO. OF RESPONDENTS 1 12 47
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 1.7 20 78.3
Rating of Availability
90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Rating of Availability Very Good 1.7% 20% 78.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 78.3% were told that availability of the KTPL products is neither good nor bad.
Expectation of Quality Information NO. OF RESPONDENTS 1 31 28
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 1.7 51.7 46.7
Expectation of Quality Information
60 51.7% 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 1.7% 0 Neither good nor bad Good Expectation of Quality Infrmation Very Good 46.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 51.7% are expecting the quality information as ordinary.
Expectation of Sale Representative Visits NO. OF RESPONDENTS 35 1 24
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Neither good nor bad Good Very Good
PERCENTAGE 58.3 1.7 40
Expectation of Sale Representative Visits
70 60 50 Percentage 40% 40 30 20 10 0 Neither good nor bad Good Very Good Expectation of Sale Representative Visits 1.7% 58.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 58.3% are expecting the sale representative visits as essential.
Expectation of New Products Information NO. OF RESPONDENTS 13 1 45 1
S.NO 1 2 3 4
EXPECTATION Essential Ordinary Important Unimportant
PERCENTAGE 21.7 1.7 75 1.7
Expectation of New Products Information
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Essential Ordinary Important Unimportant Expectation of New Products Information 1.7% 1.7% 21.7% 75%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 75% are expecting the new products information as important.
Expectation of Credit Period Limit NO. OF RESPONDENTS 2 15 1 42
S.NO 1 2 3 4
EXPECTATION Essential Ordinary Important Unimportant
PERCENTAGE 3.3 25 1.7 70
Expectation of Credit Period Limit
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Essential Ordinary Important Unimportant Expectation of Credit Period Limit 3.3% 1.7% 25% 70%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 70% are expecting the credit period limit as unimportant.
Ranking of KTPL NO. OF RESPONDENTS 4 20 15 21
S.NO 1 2 3 4
RANK 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 6.7 33.3 25 35
Ranking of KTPL
40 35 30 Percentage 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 Ranking of KTPL 3 4 6.7% 33.3% 25% 35%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 70% are raking the KTPL products in 4th place
Ranking of Ranbaxy NO. OF RESPONDENTS 32 15 8 5
S.NO 1 2 3 4
RANK 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 53.3 25 13.3 8.3
Ranking of Ranbaxy
60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 Ranking of Ranbaxy 3 4 25% 13.3% 8.3% 53.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 53.3% are ranking the Ranbaxy products in 1st place.
Ranking of Dr. Reddy NO. OF RESPONDENTS 19 11 26 4
S.NO 1 2 3 4
RANK 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 31.7 18.3 43.3 6.7
Ranking of Dr. Reddy
50 45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 Ranking of Dr. Reddy 6.7% 18.3% 31.7% 43.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 43.3% are ranking the Dr. Reddy products in 3rd place.
Ranking of Cipla NO. OF RESPONDENTS 5 14 11 30
S.NO 1 2 3 4
RANK 1 2 3 4
PERCENTAGE 8.3 23.3 18.3 50
Ranking of Cipla
60 50% 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 Ranking of Cipla 3 4 8.3% 23.3% 18.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 50% are ranking the Cipla products in 4th place.
Rating of Oxmax NO. OF RESPONDENTS 16 43 1
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 26.7 71.7 1.7
Rating of Oxmax
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Oxmax Fast Moving 1.7% 26.7% 71.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 71.7% were told that Oxmax is slow moving.
Rating of Valimax NO. OF RESPONDENTS 3 2 55
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 5 3.3 91.7
Rating of Valimax
100 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Oxmax Fast Moving 5% 3.3% 91.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 91.4% were told that Valimax is fast moving.
Rating of Dibupar NO. OF RESPONDENTS 18 17 25
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 30 28.3 41.7
Rating of Dibupar
45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Dibupar Fast Moving 30% 28.3% 41.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 41.7% were told that Dibupar is fast moving.
Rating of Maxigel NO. OF RESPONDENTS 6 3 51
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 10 5 85
Rating of Maxigel
90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Maxigel Fast Moving 10% 5% 85%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 85% were told that Maxigel is fast moving.
Rating of Ominis NO. OF RESPONDENTS 37 20 3
S.NO 1 2 3
RATING Normal moving Slow Moving Fast Moving
PERCENTAGE 61.7 33.3 5
Rating of Ominis
70 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Normal Moving Slow Moving Product Rating of Ominis Fast Moving 5% 33.3% 61.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 61.7% were told that Ominis is normal moving.
Total Prescription in Day NO. OF NO. OF
S.NO 1 2
PRESCRIPTIONS RESPONDENTS Less than 50 50 - 100 58 2
PERCENTAGE 96.7 3.3
Total Prescription in Day
120 100 Percentage 80 60 40 20 3.3% 0 Normal Moving Total Prescription in Day Slow Moving 96.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 96.7% were told that total prescription per day is less than 50.
Time of Prescription TIME OF PRESCRIPTION On the day of sale person All the days After 2 or 3 days of sale person visits NO. OF RESPONDENTS 3 44 13
S.NO
PERCENTAGE
1 2 3
5 73.3 21.7
Time of Prescription
80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 On the day of sale person All the days Total Prescription in Day After 2 or 3 days of sale person visits 5% 21.7% 73.3%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 73.3% were told that time of prescription for KTPL products in all the days.
Total Products in a Single Prescription TIME OF PRESCRIPTION Less than 3 3–6 Above 6 NO. OF RESPONDENTS 31 28 1
S.NO 1 2 3
PERCENTAGE 51.7 46.7 1.7
Total Products in a Single Prescription
60 51.7% 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 1.7% 0 Less than 3 3–6 Total Products in a Single Prescription Above 6 46.7%
INTERPRETATION From the above table, out of 60 respondents 51.7% were told that total products in a single prescription for KTPL products.
Chapter IV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
CHAPTER-IV FINDINGS
? 60% of the respondents are purchasing the KTPL products for 3-6 years. ? 70% of the respondents are having experiences between 5 to 10 years. ? 30% of the respondents were satisfied with the sale representative. ? 45 % of the respondents prefer the products due to availability. ? 72% of the respondents have very good opinion on availability of the KTPL products. ? 98.3 % of the respondents are told that they have No problems while placing the order. ? 75% of the respondents were expecting the new products information. ? 58% of the respondents were expecting the sale representative visits. ? 65% are highly satisfied with the antibiotic products. ? 18% are satisfied with the protein powder. ? 50% are highly satisfied with the vitamins & iron products. ? 48.3% are satisfied with the anti cold products. ? 73% of the respondents are getting the prescription of KTPL products in all the days.
SUGGESTIONS
? The company should arrange regular medical representative’s visit. ? Cost information and new product information to be provided. ? New schemes and offers to be implemented by KTPL to get maximum attention from the retailer. ? The company must concentrate on the Anti- cold, Protein powder, injection products to improve the sale.
V CONCLUSION
V. CONCLUSION After carefully analyzing the data, I would like to state that the KTPL products are moving well in the market. According to the opinion of the chemist the cost of KTPL products are extremely high, many chemist need more benefits and services. The regular sale representative visit and new products information are greatly needed by chemist.
Vi QUESTIONNAIRE
A Study on “PRODUCT SHARE MARKET ANALYSIS” with Reference to “KTPL Laboratories Pvt Ltd” in South Chennai
QUESTIONNAIRE Name of the shop Name of the owner Age Experience Gender Annual turnover : : :i) Less than 25 ii) 25-35 iii) 35-45 iv) Abov 45 : i) 0-5 years ii) 5-10 years iii) Above 10 years : Male/Female : i) Less than 5,00,000 ii) 5,00,000-10,00,000 iii) Above 10,00,000
1) Are you aware of KTPL products? i) Yes ii) No
2) How long you are purchasing the KTPL products? i) 1-3 years ii) 3-6 years iii) 6-9 years iv) Above 9 years
3) Why do you prefer the KTPL products? i) Quality iv) Services ii)Availability v) Delivery iii)Moderate price vi) samples
4) Do you purchase the same products from any other company? i) Yes. ii) no
i) If yes specify the name i) Cipla ii) Ranbaxy iii)Dr.Reddy
ii) Why you purchase from that company? i) Low price iv) High quality ii) Good service v) packing iii) Delivery vi) samples
5) Which Products of KTPL you place most oftenly? i) Omax iv) Maxigel ii) Valimox v) Ominis iii) Dibupar
6) Have you faced any problems with the order or delivery? i) Yes ii) No
i) If Yes specify the problem i) Late Delivery iii) Defects in products ii) Poor Packing iv) Others
7) What is your opinion regarding sale representatives visits? i) Highly Satisfied Dissatisfied iv) Dissatisfied ii) Satisfied iii) Neither Satisfied Nor
v) Highly Dissatisfied
8) How many prescription would you get for the KTPL products per day on an average? i) Less than 5 ii) 5-10 iii) 10-15 iv) 15 and Above
9) Satisfaction level KTPL products?
Products Highly Range Satisfie d
Satisfie d
Neither Dissatisfie HighlySatisfie Satisfied d d nor Dissatisfie d
Antibioti c Protein Powder Analgesi c Vitamins and Iron Anticold 10) Rate the KTPL products
Reason
Very Good
Good Neither Good nor Bad
Bad
Very Bad
Effectiveness Safety Quality Affordability Availability
11) Rate Importance of Expectation from KTPL
Expectation To provide quality information Regular sale representative visits New products information Credit period limit
Essential
Ordinary
Important
NonImportant
12) Rank the company on the basis of doctor’s prescription. i) KTPL [ ] ii) Ranbaxy [ ] iii) Dr. Reddy [ ] iv) Cipla [ ]
13) Rate the KTPL Products
Products Omax Valimox Dibupar Maxigel Ominis
Normal Moving Slow Moving
Fast Moving
14) How many prescription you get per day in total? i) Less than 50 ii) 50-100 iii) 100nd Above
15) When you get prescription? i) Only on that day when the medical representative visits ii) Sparingly all the days of the months iii) For two to three day around the medical representative visits
16) How many KTPL products in one single prescription? i) Less than 3 ii) 3-6 iii) 6 and above
Vii. BIBLIOGRAPY
REFERENCES
Books Referred
C.R.Kothari,” Research Methodology”, Wishva Prakashan, New Delhi, (2001).
Uma Sekaran,” Research Methods Of Business, Wiley India Private Limited, New Delhi, (2007), Fourth Edition.
Gurdev Singh Thakur and Supreet Babrah,” Marketing Research”, Kalyani Publishers, (2009) New Delhi – 110 002.
Websites
www.Google.com www.KTPLlabs.com www.theindiastreet.com www.hindustantimes.com www.thehindubusinessline.com
doc_837425015.docx