Assignment Assessment Report

Campus: CHANDIGARH Year/semester 2009-11/3rd

Level: PCL-I Assignment Type MODULE ASSIGNMENT
Module Name: CONSUMER BEHAVIOR Assessor’s Name
Student’s Name: SONAM Reqd Submission Date
e-mail id & Mob No Actual Submission Date
Stream Submitted to :

Certificate by the Student:

Plagiarism is a serious College offence.
I certify that this is my own work. I have referenced all relevant materials.
(Student’s Name/Signatures)

Expected Outcomes Assessment Criteria Grade based Feedback

on D,M,P,R
system
General Parameters
Clarity Clear understanding of
the concept
Analytical Thinking- Ability to analyze the
problem realistically
Research Done- Research carried out to
solve the problem
Formatting & Concise& clear
Presentation- thinking along with
presentation
Subject Specific Parameters
Design a research
1.
program
Conduct research
2.
Presentation (both
3.
written and oral)

Grades Grade Descriptors Achieved Yes/No (Y / N)

P A Pass grade is achieved by meeting all the requirements defined.
M Identify & apply strategies/techniques to find appropriate solutions
D Demonstrate convergent, lateral and creative thinking.

Assignment Grading Summary (To be filled by the Assessor)

OVERALL ASSESSMENT GRADE:
TUTOR’S COMMENTS ON
ASSIGNMENT:

SUGGESTED MAKE UP PLAN

(applicable in case the student is asked
to re-do the assignment)

REVISED ASSESSMENT GRADE

TUTOR’S COMMENT ON REVISED
WORK (IF ANY)
Date: Assessor’s Name / Signatures:
 Case Study:

Behavioral Dimensions of the Consumer Market

In the 1970’s yogurt was a popular food in Europe but for the most part unknown in
the U.S culture. Most American consumers were not aware of it. All of the changed
when Dannon and other firms began to promote and distribute yogurt in the United
States. Sales grew slowly at first, but that changed in the 1980’s as more adults became
interested in healthy eating. For lots of on the-go workers, yogurt was an economical
lunch that tasted good and saved time. It didn’t require preparation or cleanup, and it
could be eaten almost anywhere. All you needed was a plastic spoon.

By the 1990’s many brands and flavors of yogurt were on the market. Most consumers
couldn’t tell the difference between brands. When it was time to buy, they just picked
up their routine brand or perhaps whatever was on sale. Most marketers felt that
growth in the yogurt category was pretty much tapped out. But by carefully studying
consumer behavior, Ian friendly and others on his marketing team at Yoplait changed
all of that. Their marketing plan for a new product, Go-Gurt, racked up $100 million in
sales in the first year. Much of the represented new demand in the yogurt category
because the percentage of kids eating yogurt doubled. That was no accident. They
created Go-Gurt to have kid appeal.

Kids need nutritious food, but research showed that what they want in snacks is great
taste, convenience, and fun. Traditional yogurt was convenient, but it still took one
hand for the spoon and one to hold the carton. And a carton of yogurt didn’t exactly
impress the other kids as a cool thing to eat. Go-gurt took care of that. It did away with
the spoon by putting the yogurt in a 9-inch long, one-handed squeeze tube. The
creaminess of the product was adjusted to make it just right for on –the- go eating.
Kids didn’t have a very positive attitude about most standard yogurt flavors, so the
foil- embossed Go-Gurt tube was filled with flavors kids could learn to love-like
strawberry splash and Watermelon Melt down.

Go-gurt introductory ads were placed on media like Nickelodeon so they’d reach kids
directly. Then it was up to them to ask their parents to buy go-Gurt at the store. The
ads positioned Go-Gurt not just as a food but as a life-style accessory for kids. To build
awareness of the benefits of the package and interest in the product, the ads conveyed
the idea that it was OK to play with your food. For example, in one spot a young
skateboarder holding a go-gurt blasts past another kid who looks bored eating from a
carton of yogurt as the announcer asks, “Why eat yogurt like this when you can eat
with your hands, not a spoon? Go-Gurt comes in a totally cool squeeze and slurp, grab
and glurp. “The Go-gurt slurping skateboarder tells the other boy, “Hey, lose the
spoon.”
To follow up on the awareness and interest generated by the ads, a heavy sampling
program played a crucial role on building product trail. No, the samples were not
distributed at the grocery store. Kids on skateboards and scooters passed out samples
from backpacks at festivals, theme parks, soccer games, and local parks.

Other food companies quickly imitated Yoplait’s tube packaging. Yet none was able to
cop Go-Gurt’s big success. Hunt’s Squeez’n Go pudding, Mott’s Fruit Blasters apple
sauce, and Skippy peanut butter in a tube were among the brands that did not sell well.
Why? Moms complained that the tubes created a big mess on kid’s clothes and
furniture, so retailers lost interest and would not provide shelf-space support. One critic
argued that the costly failures could have been avoided- because the “knee-jerk
reaction” to imitate Go-gurt resulted in products that were rushed to market without
adequate research to gather insights from consumers.

Question:

Q1. Dannon demonstrated a good grasp of consumer insight when it introduced

& promoted yoghurt into the United States in the 1970s. By following a consistent
policy of learning from the consumer, Yoplait was able to emerge as a leader in this
category. How? Discuss.

ANSWER

Retailers typically sell many different products from the same manufacturer
at the same price. For example, in the yogurt category, all flavors of six
ounce Dannon Fruit-on-the-Bottom yogurt are sold at one price, while all
flavors of six ounce Yoplait Original yogurt are sold at a second price. This
practice is common in many product categories, including frozen dinners,
ice cream and salsa. In other product categories, however (e.g., frozen juice),
items are typically sold at different prices within manufacturer brands. While
not true at all times, in all stores, and for all products, the extent of these
uniform prices across different retailers, product categories, and time is
stunning. Why is it optimal for the retailer to sell many different items at the
same price? Consider the following anecdotal

Examples:

Tea and Juice Although many teas and juices are sold at uniform prices,
there are notable exceptions. Frozen orange juice is almost always priced
differently from other frozen juice. Within the premium juice category (e.g.,
brands such as Odwalla and Naked Juice), prices are frequently completely
non-uniform. Similarly, although most teas are sold at uniform prices, some
varieties of tea are frequently sold at a higher price. These non-uniform
prices seem to correlate with marked differences in marginal costs.
Although most tea leaves cost roughly the same, some cost more to produce.
Similarly, differences in cost and juiciness across different fruits can lead to
different marginal costs for the same volume of liquid. Furthermore, both tea
and juice are products that are difficult for manufacturers to adjust the
amount of input per unit of output. If manufacturers adjust the amount of
real juice or tea leaves, consumers are likely to notice.

Wine Different varieties of wine from the same vineyard and vintage are
typically sold at the same price when they are sold for less than $15 a bottle.
For example, the much reviewed Charles Shaw wines are $1.99, regardless
of variety (e.g., Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, Shiraz, Gamay Beaujolais,
Chardonnay, or Sauvignon Blanc). However, for more expensive wine,
different varieties are generally priced non-uniformly. As prices increase, we
see more and larger deviations from uniform prices.

Clothing within a particular style, clothing is typically sold at the same price
for different colors and sizes. There are however, exceptions to this rule:
while S,M,L and XL sizes are typically the same price, many retailers charge
more for XXXL and “tall” sizes. These sizes generally cost the retailer more,
either because of the amount of fabric used, or because average costs are
higher due to lower volumes. Also, although men’s shirts are usually priced
uniformly across colors, striped shirts are frequently priced differently.
Retailers frequently claim that this is because striped shirts are a different
style than solid colored shirts, with different demand.

Books, even harlequin romance novels, are not sold at uniform prices. Even
different books by a single author generally have different prices. At first
this seems puzzling. But unlike many products, books are frequently sold
with a suggested retail price stamped on their cover or dust jacket.
Furthermore, this price is the same everywhere. While many retailers offer
lower prices (e.g., discounts for New York Times Bestsellers), these are
nearly always offered as a percentage difference from this suggested price. If
one is willing to take as given the constraint that most books are sold at a
single price (or at most 2-3 prices) nationally, it becomes clear that the
demand for different books is almost certainly quite different.

The answer to the uniform pricing puzzle must revolve around the key
question: How do retailers set prices? Menu costs are not the only potential
explanation. Indeed, in addition to the menu cost explanation, there are a
variety of explanations, which fall into two groups: demand-side (consumer-
based) and supply-side (retailer-based) explanations.