1. A STUDY OF MARKET SHARE
FOR UNIPLY IN
COMPARISION TO KITPLY,
GREENPLY AND SHARON
BY
P. SOLOMON II MBA
DOMS, MKU.
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
• I am forever grateful to Mr. Vipul Saxena , HR &
Marketing Head, Uniply Industries Limited, Chennai, for
his charitable heart to give his inspiring, vivacious and
excellent guidance all through out the course of Project.
• I am thankful to Dr. K. Ravichandran , Reader,
Department of Management Studies, Madurai Kamaraj
University, Madurai, for his excellent guidance through
out this project and also to make this manuscript
technically correct.
3. SYNOPSIS
• The project work has been mainly undertaken to study
the market share for Uniply in comparision to Kitply,
Greenply and Sharon.
• The project work has also been done to study the
various factors of purchase decision I.e., whether
through Brand pull or rational analysis.
• The study is also intended to analyse the factors of
brand switching and covers the analysis of various
factors for the satisfaction of retailers.
4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
• PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
– To find out the market share for Uniply comparing to
Kitply, Greenply and Sharon.
• SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
– To study the influence of various factors on the
purchase decision of consumers of Plywood.
– To know the consumers level of perception on various
brands
– To study the impact of brand name on the sales
figures
– To analyse the brand switching pattern
– To estimate the influence of various factors on the
retailers for their satisfaction.
6. • The study is a descriptive study as it portrays the
characteristic and opinion of the retailers.
• The nature of data collected was primary and the
method used to collect the data was
Interrogation/Communication mode . The tool used
for this was questionnaire method.
• Retailers and end users were taken as a sample unit
for the study.
• The sample size is 100-50 retailers and 50 end
consumers.
• The field work, for the case of retailers, covered the
following areas-Choolai, Icehouse, Mint, Adyar,
Kodambakkam, Ashok Nagar, Arcot Road, Ambattur,
G.N. Chetty Road.
8. AVAILABILITY
The following data gives the no. of outlets dealing with
various brands
50 44
BRANDS NO OF OUTLETS PERCENTAGE 40
40 38
SHARON 22 44
KITPLY 19 38 30 28
UNIPLY 14 28 22 20
19
20 14
GREENPLY 20 40
10
0
SHARON KITPLY UNIPLY GREENPLY
9. CONSUMERS INITIAL
APPROACH
The following data gives the average percentage
of consumers
Asking by brand name - 34%
Without specifying any brand name - 66%
Mostly consumers do not ask by brand name.
Also mainly those who ask by brand name are
carpenters.
10. RETAILERS INFLUENCE
No. of outlets
Brands No. of outlets
Percentage 10%
KITPLY 5 10 10% KITPLY
UNIPLY 5 10 UNIPLY
GREENPLY 6 12 48% GREENPLY
12%
SHARON 3 6 SHARON
CENTURY 7 14 6% CENTURY
OTHERS 24 48 14%
OTHERS
Mostly retailers try to influence the local brands because
of margin. Also in case of first grade, CENTURY is given
the first preference
11. REACTION TO THE
RETAILERS INFLUENCE
The level of their reaction is recorded in the 5-point
scale. The results are given as
The total credits given by 50 retailers=156(out of 250)
Average Credits = 3.12(out of 5)
By this, we can say that 62% of consumers buy the
brand that is influenced by the retailers.
12. BRANDS BEING ASKED
INITIALLY
Brands No. of resp. Percentage Initially asked brands
KITPLY 15 30
UNIPLY 3 6 KITPLY
SHARON 7 14 30% UNIPLY
40%
SHARON
CENTURY 4 8
CENTURY
GREENPLY 1 2 6%
2% 8% 14% GREENPLY
ASSAM 20 40
ASSAM
Mostly consumers ask for Assam Prestige. Then comes
Kitply. All others are given very low weightage.
13. BRANDS CONVERTED INTO
ACTUAL PURCHASE
Brands No. of respondents Percentage Actual purchase
KITPLY 6 12 KITPLY
UNIPLY 3 6 UNIPLY
24% 12%
SHARON 9 18 6% SHARON
CENTURY 3 6 CENTURY
GREENPLY 6 12 18%
GREENPLY
ASSAM 11 22 22%
12% 6% ASSAM
UNBRANDED 12 24 UNBRANDED
By this, we can see that Assam is made into a sale,
equally that of Unbranded. In case of first grade, Sharon
takes the lead, and equally comes Kitply and Greenply,
followed by Uniply and Century
14. FACTORS FOR BRAND
SWITCHING
The following table gives the ranking of various
factors for brand switching
Factors Quality Price Availability Post Sale services
Ranks
1 21 24 4 1
2 17 16 16 1
3 12 10 18 10
4 - - 12 38
Total
Credits 159 164 112 65
By this we can see that Price factor is given the highest
weightage. Quality factor is given the second place,
followed by Availability. Post Sale services factor is given
very least weightage.
15. SATISFACTION LEVEL OF
RETAILERS WITH VARIOUS
BRANDS
Brands No. of respondents Total Credits Avg. Credit Retailers satisfaction level
(Out of 10)
Kitply 19 142.5 7.5 8
Uniply 14 102 7.3 7.5
7
Greenply 22 170 7.72 6.5 Avg. Credit
Sharon 20 160 8
Kitply
Uniply
Greenply
Sharon
By this, we can say that Sharon provides the best for its
retailers. Then comes Greenply, followed by Kitply. Even
there is marginal difference, UNIPLY is comparatively
lesser than all others.
17. BRANDS THAT HAVE MORE
AWARENESS
Preferences 1 2 3 Credits
Brands
Kitply 32 3 6 108
Greenply 4 2 2 54
Uniply 5 13 11 52
Sharon 7 10 1 42
Century 2 4 30 40
The respondents are open to say what all brands that
come to their mind. From that, the first three options
were tabulated.
18. CONSUMERS PERCEPTION ON
VARIOUS BRANDS
The following table gives perception level in 10-point scale
Brands No. of Total Credits Avg. Credit
Respondents
Kitply 50 380 7.6
Uniply 50 415 8.3
Greenply 50 425 8.5
Sharon 50 375 7.5
By the table, we can see that consumers have good
perception on UNIPLY and Greenply more than that of
Kitply and Sharon.
19. STATUS OF VARIOUS BRANDS
IN CONSUMERS’ MIND
Brands Share of Mind Share of heart
20
No. of Percentage No. of respondents Percentage 15
Respondents 10 SHARE OF
5
Kitply 18 36 6 12 0
MIND
SHARE OF
Uniply 9 18 9 18 HEART
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
L
L
R
PL
O
Greenply 9 18 4 8
TP
IP
TU
AR
N
N
KI
EE
EN
U
SH
Century 6 12 14 28
R
C
G
Sharon 8 16 17 34
Kitply has the most share of mind. But Sharon has the
most share of heart. UNIPLY has equal preference for
share of mind and share of heart. It shows its customers ’
loyalty.
20. BRAND LOYALTY INDEX
The following data gives the credits given by the
consumers on the brand loyalty for the case of
plywood. This is done in the 10- point scale.
Total Credits = 175
Avg.. Credits = 3.5 (out of 10)
By this we can say that consumers are very less
brand loyal to plywood.
21. FACTORS FOR PURCHASE
DECISION
Factors No. of resp. Percentage Factors for purchase decision
Attitude of
Brand
others
Attitude of others 23 46 image
28%
Consumer reports 2 4 22%
Consumer
Sales force influence 12 24 reports
Word of mouth 27 54 2%
Word of Sales force
Brand image 18 36 mouth influence
33% 15%
‘Word of mouth’ is given more weightage, followed by the
‘ attitude of others’;’Brand image’ is also given a
reasonable weightage.
22. BRANDS THAT ARE BEING USED
CURRENTLY
Current usage share
Brands No. of users Percentage
40
Kitply 2 4 30
Greenply 8 16 20
10
Uniply 11 22 0 Percentage
Greenply
Century
Uniply
Kitply
Sharon
Sharon 16 32
Century 13 26
Sharon comes first in the usage share. Then comes
Century followed by Uniply, Kitply, has got the least
place.
23. BRANDS THAT WERE USED
PREVIOUSLY
The following data gives the picture of the previous market
Brands No. of resp. Percentage
Previously used brands
Kitply 14 28
Greenply 12 24 30
Century 9 18 20
10 Percentage
Uniply 7 14
0
Sharon 2 4
Others 6 12
By this table, we can see that Kitply had the good
business in the previous market. Then comes Greenply
followed by Century and Uniply.
24. FACTORS FOR BRAND SWITCHING
Factors No. of resp Percentage Factors for brand switching
40
Quality 16 32 30
20
Price 18 36 10 Percentage
0
Sales force influence 9 18 Qualit y Price Sales Word of
f or ce mout h
Word of mouth 7 14 inf luence
By this, Quality and Price are given equal preference.
Also Sales force influence has some reasonable impact
to switch the brands.
25. FACTORS FOR THE PREFERENCE
OF UNIPLY
Factors for preference of Uniply
Factors Total Credits Price
16%
Price 26 19%
Quality
Quality 39 Brand image
Brand image 39 18% 24%
Word of mouth
Word of mouth 30 Sales force
23% influence
Sales force influence 32
As per the table, Quality and Brand image are given top
priority. Sales force influence is also given some
preference
26. SATISFACTION LEVEL WITH UNIPLY
Responses No. of resp. Satisfaction level of UNIPLY users
Highly dissatisfied 1 6
5
dissatisfied 0 4
3
neither nor 3 2
1
No. of resp.
satisfied 6 0
highly satisfied 1
By this, we can see that the satisfaction level is above
the average level.
28. COUNTER SALES
Brands % of Sales Counter Sales
Kitply 14 Kitply
Uniply 22 Sharon
37%
14%
Greenply 27 Uniply
22%
Sharon 37 Greenply
27%
In case of counter sales, Sharon comes first, followed
by Greenply. Uniply also has a reasonable share in
counter sales.
29. PROJECT SALES
Brands % of Sales Project Sales
Century 35
Sharon Kitply
Uniply 33 Orchid
11% 1% Century
35%
Archid 20 20%
Sharon 11 Uniply
33%
Kitply 1
In case of Project sales, Century leads the market
followed by Uniply with a minor deviation. Archid has a
good market.
30. OVERALL SALES
Brands Value(in lacs) % of Sales Overall sales
Sharon 35 19 Kitply Sharon
11% 19%
Century 29.5 16
Greenply Century
Uniply 46 25 29% 16%
Uniply
Greenply 53.25 29 25%
Kitply 20 11
When comparing for overall sales, Greenply comes first
followed by Uniply and then by Sharon. But Greenply
and Uniply have a good market.
32. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
• In the case of availability in the counter, Uniply comes in
the last place, followed by all the other brands listed. In
case of retail sales, Carpenters and Home owners are
coming equally for purchase.
• If we see the behaviour for the purchase of plywood,
mostly consumers ask for ‘Plywood’ only, not specific to
any brand. They arrive at a purchase of a certain brand
based on their various desired factors. Also 90% of
those 34% who ask by brand names, are the carpenters.
• Retailers are confident to make the sale of their
influencing brand upto 65%. At the same time, more than
half of the retailers try to influence the local brands. The
main reason is ‘Margin’ which is flexible because those
prices are not known to every one.
33. FINDINGS(Contd.)
• By the counter responses, ‘Assam Prestige’ is being
asked mostly, while entering the shop. Then Kitply also
has more awareness. But if we see the actual purchase,
unbranded plywoods get the first rank, followed by
Assam prestige. This is not in volume, just in number of
responses. But in case of large consumers, Kitply has
more awareness followed by Sharon and Uniply.
• These large consumers have good perception on
Greenply followed by Uniply. In case of Share of mind,
Kitply has its best lead. But it has a poor credits for share
of heart. It may be because of its non-availability.
Sharon has a good lead in share of heart, followed by
Century and Uniply.
34. FINDINGS(Contd.)
• These consumers are very less brand loyal. They rely
mostly on the factors like Word of mouth, Attitude of
others for purchase decision. Brand image is also given
some preference I.e., they need a source for reliability.
• Sharon, Century and Uniply have a good market at
present whereas, Kitply and Greenply had in the past.
• Price and Quality are given equal weightage for Brand
switching. Sales force influence also has some impact.
• In case of sales, Sharon comes first in counter sales,
from the list of leading brands. Then comes Greenply
followed by Uniply. But if we go for the larger
consumption like project, Uniply and Century have the
lead followed by Archid and Sharon
35. SUGGESTIONS
• The management should try to capture more
retailers/dealers, so that Uniply should reach the
‘extensive distribution’ stage. It should try to reach the
minor market also I.e., not only in Choolai, Mint,
Icehouse.
• The management should try to have close relationship
with all the dealers, more than that of rivals have with
their owns.
• The sales force should be often controlled and monitored
to get more order, which may please the dealers. Since
Sales force influence has reasonable impact on
preference for Uniply and for brand switching.
36. SUGGESTIONS(Contd.)
• Advertising Campaign should be
modernized to show the standards of the
product. Advertising through electronic
media and transit advertising like back to
MTC buses, Bus shelters, can be
implemented
37. SUGGESTIONS(Contd.)
• As an effective expense, at least 4 to 5 big
hoardings should be launched in the
signals. This strategy will increase the
self-satisfaction of existing users of
UNIPLY which may induce for repurchase
I.e., retention and memorability.
• In order to come close to the dealers and
to have close eyes with the market, the
company should organize dealers and
carpenters meet regularly.
38. LIMITATIONS
• The study is restricted to Chennai city only.
• The leading brands such as Kitply, Uniply, Greenply and
Sharon were only analysed.
• For the sample of end users, senior carpentry
supervisors for large consuming applications like hotels,
commercial establishments, exclusive offices, high
quality residences, were only interviewed.
• For the sample of retailers, those who are dealing with
the leading brands were studied.
39. LIMITATIONS(Contd.)
• Mostly, the retailers have dealership for utmost two
brands of the first grade. Hence dealers’ bias should be
taken into account.
• The findings are opt to this period only. Since the sites
for the future period may go for consumption of different
brands.
41. STRENGTHS
• Brand image
• Quality standards i.e., specifications
• Good marketing Team
• Share of mind equals the share of heart
• An aggressive and well monitored marketing team
Good place in Project Sales i.e., huge consumption
42. WEAKNESSES
• Lack in distribution coverage
• Advertising strategies are not updated and modernized.
• Lack of brand image in retail consumers’ mind.
