INDIAN DETERGENT INDUSTRY: NEED FOR NEW VARIANT TO TAP POTENTIAL GAPS

DR. RITESH K. PATEL

Assistant Professor, PG Research
Center for Governance Systems,
Gujarat Technological University,
Ahmedabad,
Email: visit_ritesh@yahoo.com, Mo.:
+91-9687100199.

ABSTRACT

The market of synthetic detergents was valued at about Rs 112 billion as of 2012-13 with a
compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3%. Out of this, the machine wash or automatic sales has
been dominated by powder detergents, with a 98% share in the market, which has a size of Rs. 18700
Million. However, a much bigger segment of the market is the non-automatic or the hand-wash
category, which has a size of Rs. 85466.8 Million and is also dominated by the powder detergents but
by a smaller percentage compared to the machine-wash category, about 68%. The remaining
contribution comes from the bar detergents. Within the machine-wash category, the highest growth has
been contributed by the powder detergents, a CAGR of 9.5% since 2005, with the other sub-category
within the machine-wash category being liquid detergents. Also, the hand-wash detergents have shown
an impressive growth rate of 8.8% CAGR since 2005, which has contributed to the growth in the overall
detergent market.
Based on the literature review and scope of the research problem, two decision problems and four
research problems were identified. The former pertained to factors affecting consumers’ preference for
detergents, while the latter focused on the competitors positioning and possible gaps where the new
variant of Tide could be placed. Information was acquired from exploratory research in the form of
personal interviews and surveys and supplemented by secondary data.
Based on interviews comprised of traditional questions conducted across interviewees among
housewives, buying decision factors were identified. A list of features that customers look for in a
detergent powder was developed, grouped into sets of factors and the top features were identified.
Forming an LP diagram from these, the key requisites were identified to be superior whiteness, washing
machine usability, affordability, goodness for colored clothes and a few others. From these factors
combinations were made and 4 product concepts were designed.

Keywords: Detergent Industry, Liquid Detergent, Potential Product, New Product Development, etc.

Introduction
Over the last decade, India has grown tremendously and so have the incomes of its people, with a
larger chunk of the Indian demography moving into urban areas in search of better and more lucrative career
options. With this advent, there has been a significant rise in consumer durables as well, with some of the
earliest signs of this rise being shown by those which fulfilled the most basic of needs, like washing clothes.
As a result of this, there has been an influx of buyers in the detergent market, with more and more people
buying washing machine powders. However, this constitutes only 20% of the population. There is the
remaining 80% of them, around 200 million households, who wash their laundry by hand.

Figure 1: Categorization of the Indian Detergent Market

 There are consumers who have just transitioned from hand-wash to machine-wash. They tend to have
a limited laundry detergent budget. But, established washing machine powder brands such as P&G’s Ariel and
HUL’s Surf, are priced high and are not able to tap this segment of the consumers completely. They hence
would be reluctant to use these high cost detergents every wash.
With the above state of the consumer demography in the Indian detergent market, we believe that
there could be a significant scope for established brands like P&G and HUL to reposition or extend some of
their detergent lines to target this consumer segment. On a more specific note, we aim to focus on P&G’s
Tide, as potentially a new variant is to be introduced in the low-cost washing machine powder space. The
reason behind this choice is that Tide is an established brand in the medium cost segment, priced at about half
that of the high priced Ariel and Surf and can thus leverage its existing brand equity and make it an
“Affordable Washing Machine Detergent”.
In order to back the above claim, we would have to undertake a market research study that establishes
a significant demand for such detergents in the low-priced segment. This should be backed by surveys to gain
the consumer and market knowledge and obtain insights of the scope of success for such a brand repositioning
in terms of its potential of penetration among the potential customers wanting a lower priced washing machine
detergent.

Market Overview
The detergent market in India consists of two major categories- the hand-wash and the machine-wash
categories. Powder detergents and bar-detergent form a major portion of the hand-wash segment. However, in
the machine-wash segment, the powder detergents and liquid detergents are the main types.
Total market of synthetic detergents was valued at about Rs 112 billion as of 2012-13 with a
compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3%. Out of this, the machine wash or automatic sales has been
dominated by powder detergents, with a 98% share in the market, which has a size of Rs. 18700 Million.
However, a much bigger segment of the market is the non-automatic or the hand-wash category, which has a
size of Rs. 85466.8 Million and is also dominated by the powder detergents but by a smaller percentage
compared to the machine-wash category, about 68%. The remaining contribution comes from the bar
detergents. Within the machine-wash category, the highest growth has been contributed by the powder
detergents, a CAGR of 9.5% since 2005, with the other sub-category within the machine-wash category being
liquid detergents. Also, the hand-wash detergents have shown an impressive growth rate of 8.8% CAGR since
2005, which has contributed to the growth in the overall detergent market.

Detergent
market

Machine-
Hand-Wash
Wash

Powder Liquid Bar Powder

Detergents Detergents Detergents Detergents

Figure 2: Sub-Category by Detergent Type

Dominance by MNCs
The multinational firms have taken the bigger pie in the market share, with about 56% of the category
belonging to them. This has primarily been due to frequent product innovations and the higher advertising
budgets of these firms. This higher budget translates into a better distribution and also much higher visibility
in the retail stores. However, the relative success of the Indian firms like Rohit Surfactants and Nirma could be
attributed to a long standing customer relationship and more importantly, the fact that these products have
always been present in the economy tiers, thus positioning them as affordable brands and therefore catering to
bigger chunk of the customers, which has helped them gain the relatively larger market shares they currently
hold.
Figure 3: Market share by manufacturers Figure 4: Market share by Brand

Market Share: Brand-Wise

Market Share: Manufacturer-wise
Others Wheel
Godrej, 19%
Henkel, HUL 19%
Amway 42% Rin
17% 7% Ghari
Nirma
17%
and Rohit Tide
P&G Surfacta 10%
26% nts Nirma Surf
15% 14% 14%

Defining the Research Problem

Based on the scope of the research, two decision problems were identified:
1. What factors affect consumers’ preference for detergent powders?
2. Identify gap in the Indian detergent industry.

Based on literature review and information obtained from secondary sources, four research problems were
identified:
1. What is the buying decision process for detergent powders?
2. What are the features buyers consider when purchasing detergent powder?
3. What are the characteristics a new variant to be introduced into the market should have?
4. What is the desired positioning of Tide's new variant in washing machine detergent powder?

The former two research problems would help us in assessing the consumer mind set and buying process.
The latter two research problems would help us to identify the ideal product features, target market and
positioning of the product.

Development of Product Concepts:

Based on the exploratory research, it can be concluded that there exists an opportunity to enter into
the low-priced detergent segment (tier 2 and tier3) for an established brand like P&G. The major aspects of the
product’s value proposition to the customers could be the following:
 Insights Product Concepts

P1

• Mildness on hands
Washing machine compatible powder needed in small
• Superior whiteness amount even in hard water. Remove tough stains and keeps
clothes extra white!
• Good for colored clothes
• Has fragrance P2
• Affordable (Price) Dual benefit washing machine powder and mild on hands
for bucket wash, protects colours and has a pleasant smell ,
• Usability in washing machine all at an affordable price!
• Tough stains removal
• Value for money P3

• Performance with hard water Keeps clothes sparkling white and protect the colors with
just a small amount. Work well in hard water and is mild
• Long lasting foam on hands as well.

P4 (Current Tide Plus)

Affordable powder that gives the superior white, removes

tough stains and leaves a good fragrance as well!

Data Analysis and Inference Building

The data analysis and inference building process used for achieving the objectives of the research was carried
out in four sub parts:
a) Assessment of the opportunity for a new variant of detergent in the market.
b) Checking whether the attributes / benefits considered important by sample housewives are same as
the ones used for generating the four product concepts.
c) Assessment of the overall consumer reaction to the four product concepts.
d) Assessment of competitive positioning of the product concepts and existing brands / variants

a) Assessment of the opportunity for a new variant

Here, four pieces of information from the consumer research were recognized to be important for assessing the
extent of opportunity for a new variant in the washing detergent powder market:
1. Reason for using current brand / variant
2. Use of multiple medium for washing clothes
3. Use of multiple washing detergent brands

1) Reason for using current brand / variant:

This assessment was done through a question with different response categories. Table below summarizes the
specific reasons.
Table 1 Reason for using current brand

S. No. Responses No. of Respondents % Respondents

1 It is a force of habit 8 12%
2 There is really no other choice 11 16%
3 This is the best available brand in the market 43 63%
4 This is exactly the product I have always wanted to use 6 9%
 It can be inferred from the below that 88% respondents made explicit choice about the brands / variant
excluding the respondents saying it was merely a force of habit. Additionally, since only 9% of the
respondents were fully satisfied by their current brand / variant, it can be concluded that if a new variant is
launched successfully, it has a huge potential in terms of satisfying the remaining 79% respondents.

2) Use of multiple medium for washing clothes

All respondents were asked about the washing mediums they use. Below is the summary of results:
Table 2 Medium of washing cloths
Respondents Using
S. No. Medium Number %
1 Detergent – Powder 64 94
2 Detergent – Liquid 12 18
3 Detergent – Bar 32 47

Table 3 No. of Medium used for washing

Respondents Using
Number of cleaning medium used Number % Cumulative %
Three or more 4 6% 6%
Two 38 56% 62%
One 26 38% 100%

From these results, we infer 94 % respondents are mostly comfortable with using detergent powder as
washing medium. Liquid medium is not very popular among the respondents. Also, 62% respondents use two
or more types of medium. From the aforesaid, it can be concluded that a new variant introduction might not
face a high level of difficulty in adoption among the detergent consumers can be introduced in the form of
powder as this form of medium has high acceptability among the consumers.

3) Use of multiple washing detergent brands

Responses were collected by respondents for detergents used in the current past and no of brands used
Table 4 Detergent brands used
Respondents Using
S. No. Brands Number %
1 Ariel 36 53%
2 Surf 42 62%
3 Tide 27 40%
4 Rin 32 47%
5 Wheel 31 46%

Table 5 No. of Detergent Brands Used

Respondents Using
Number of brands used Number % Cumulative %
Four or more 12 18% 18%
Three 37 54% 72%
Two 18 26% 99%
One 1 1% 100%

These results clearly show that 99% of the respondents use or have used two or more brands and
would probably try the new variant. In fact, 72% users would welcome the new variant as they use three or
more brands. Given this scenario, we can conclude that if the variant is launched with good promotion, there
is high probability of significant trials from the consumers. Therefore, a new brand should definitely not face
difficulties from large population of detergent powder users.
On the basis of inferences on each of the above three aspects, we can conclude that there is ample
opportunity for a new variant in the detergent powder market.

b) Checking Important Attributes/Benefits

Ten attributes were used earlier while generating the product concepts as mentioned below:
 Mildness on hands
 Superior whiteness
  Good for coloured clothes
 Has fragrance
 Affordable (price)
 Usability in washing machine
 Tough stains removal
 Cleaning with only small amount
 Performance with hard water
 Long lasting foam

In order to verify whether these attributes are considered important by sampled consumers, following
information was taken during the questionnaire survey:
a) Rank of the ten attributes / benefits in buying the detergent powder
b) Rating of each brand used and each product concept tested on- (i) Overall basis, and (ii) Each of the ten
attributes / benefits

Two methods were used each based on the ranks and ratings respectively to assess the importance of
attributes.

On the Basis of Ranks

Ranking of the ten attributes / benefits was captured from all the 68 respondents deriving the
purchase of detergent powder. The following table provides the summary of reactions of the respondents in
terms of simple and cumulative frequency distribution of responses on each attribute benefit.
The median ranks of each of the attributes / benefits are tabulated as under:
Table 6 Median ranks for features in detergent brand
Sr. No. Feature Median Rank
1. Mildness on hands 4
2. Superior whiteness 3
3. Good for colored clothes 3
4. Has fragrance 5
5. Affordable (Price) 5
6. Usability in washing machine 5
7. Tough stains removal 5
8. Cleans with only small amount 7
9. Performance with hard water 8
10. Long lasting foam 9

Considering only the attributes / benefits with median rank less than or equal to 5, it can be inferred
that the most important attributes are superior whiteness, good for colored clothes (both having median rank
3), mildness on hands (median rank 4), having fragrance, affordabilit, tough stains removal and usability in
washing machine (each having median rank 5).

On the Basis of Ratings

A step wise regression analysis was conducted using the overall rating (of each brand/product
concept) as dependent variable and the rating on each of the attributes / benefits as independent variables.
With the significant variables concluded from the step wise regression, a simple linear regression was run to
obtain regression coefficients and carry out analysis of variance.
Prior to running the regression analysis, summary measures of each of the attributes / benefits
(independent variables) as well as the relationship among each pair of two variables (correlation matrix) were
calculated as presented below. The correlations among the variables was found to be moderate (less than 0.70)
allowing us to apply regression analysis. Variables 28 to 115 of the code book were utilized for the aforesaid
regression.

Table 7 Statistics for each feature of detergent brand

Coun Mea SE Std. Mi Media Ma
Variable
t n Mean Dev. n n x
Mildness on hands 68 3.18 0.09 0.7519 2 3 4
Superior whiteness 68 3.31 0.07 0.5533 2 3 4
Good for colored clothes 68 3.68 0.06 0.502 3 4 5
Has fragrance 68 3.35 0.10 0.806 2 3 5
Affordable (Price) 68 3.26 0.10 0.8033 2 3 5
Usability in washing machine 68 3.19 0.09 0.7776 1 3 4
Tough stains removal 68 3.54 0.08 0.6564 2 3 5
Cleans with only small
68 3.37 0.09 0.7512 2 4 4
amount
Performance I hard water 68 3.40 0.09 0.7559 2 3 5
Long lasting foam 68 3.38 0.10 0.829 2 4 5
Overall Rating 68 3.40 0.07 0.602 2 3 4

Regression Analysis
Overall Rating = -1.57 + 0.62 Mildness on Hands + 0.293 Good for colored clothes + 0.282 Has
Fragrance + 0.425 Affordable (Price) + 0.228 Usability in washing machine

Table 8 Regression model on features of detergent and overall rating

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P VIF
Constant -1.5720 0.6285 -2.50 0.015
Mildness on hands 0.26167 0.06403 4.09 0.000 1.439
Good for Colored Clothes 0.2925 0.1052 2.78 0.007 1.733
Has Fragrance 0.28198 0.07671 3.68 0.000 2.374
Affordable (Price) 0.42530 0.05484 7.76 0.000 1.205
Usability in washing machine 0.22830 0.07885 2.90 0.005 2.334
S = 0.328479, R-Sq = 72.4%, R-Sq (adj) = 70.2%
Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.79358
Dependent Variable: Overall Rating

The Durbin- Watson statistic value of close to 2 (1.79358, VIF values of significantly less than 2.5 in
addition to the above standardized residual charts ruled out any possibility of presence of auto-correlation,
non-normality and multi-collinearly in the regression analysis conducted.
The above regression analyses resulted in the following attributes / benefits being significant in
overall assessment of the detergent powder:
 Mildness on hands
 Good for coloured clothes
 Has fragrance
 Affordability (price)
 Usability in washing machine

c) Overall evaluation of product concepts

Three measures of overall evaluation of consumer acceptance of the four product concepts were used in the
consumer research as mentioned below:
i. Overall rating
ii. Buying intention
iii. Uniqueness

The descriptive statistics for these measures have been tabulated as under:

Table 9 Level of Uniqueness of the four concepts

 Table 10 Buying Intention for the four concepts

Table 11 Overall Rating of the four concepts

The following analysis was planned to select the particular product concept(s) for further consideration:
1. Understand the relationship between the three overall measures.
2. Rank the four product concepts on the basis of central tendency on each of the three variables.
3. Re-rank the product concepts on each of the three variables on the basis of significance of differences
in the measure of central tendency.

1. Understanding the relationship between the three measures

The three variables were assumed to be measured on interval scale. Simple correlation coefficients
between all possible pairs of the three variables were obtained to understand the relationship between the three
variables as tabulated below

Correlation Matrix

Table 12 Correlation Matrix for Uniqueness, Buying intention and Overall Rating
Uniqueness Buying Intention Overall Rating
Uniqueness 1.000
Buying Intention 0.192 1.000
Overall Rating 0.569 0.769 1.000

Important findings of the analysis were:

 1. ‘Buying intention’ and ‘overall rating’ were quite highly positively correlated (corr. of 0.769).
2. ‘Overall rating’ has moderate positive correlation of 0.569 with ‘uniqueness’.
3. ‘Buying intention’ and ‘uniqueness’ has very mild positive correlation of 0.192.

The high positive correlation of 0.769 between ‘Buying intention’ and ‘overall rating’ is quite understandable
as well as the positive correlations among other pairs.

2. Ranking of Product Concepts

The analysis for ranking of product concepts, first on the basis of the measure of central tendency
(mean) and then on the basis of differences in mean was conducted.
The final ranking on each variable is given in table below:

Table 13 Rank of Product Concepts on the Variables (All figures are mean values in brackets)
Rank Overall Rating Buying Intention Uniqueness
1 P2(3.86) P2(3.53) P2(2.48)
2 P1(3.51) P1(3.44) P4(2.29)
3 P3(3.39) P4(3.22) P3(2.25)
4 P4(3.30) P3(3.01) P1(2.05)

Selecting the Best Concept(s):

After observing the above table, the following inferences can be made:
1. The product concepts P3 was ranked lowest on ‘buying intention’ and second lowest on both ‘overall
rating’ and ‘uniqueness’. Therefore, it was dropped from further consideration.
2. The product concept P4 was ranked lowest in ‘overall rating’ and second lowest on another important
attribute /buying intention’. So, it was also dropped from further consideration.
3. The product concept P2 clearly emerged the winner on all three counts and it was decided to include it
for further consideration
4. The Concept P1 was quite close to P2 except on the ‘uniqueness feature’ and therefore it was also
included for further consideration.
4. Significance of differences in the measure of central tendency.

While comparing concept P1 and P2, a statistical test (Z-test) was used for differences in means as described
below:
Null Hypothesis:
Ho: Mean rating of concept P2 (MRP2) = Mean rating of concept P1 (MRP1)

Alternative Hypothesis:
Ha: MRP2 is not equal to MRP1
Appropriate test statistic:
Z - Statistic = (MRP2 – MRP1) / Sqrt ((var1/n1)+ (var2/n2))
Here, MRP2 = 3.868, MRP1 = 3.515, var2 = 0.409, var1 = 0.397, n1 = 68, n2 = 68
Z Computed = 3.24
Zcritical (CI= 95%, 5% alpha) = 1.96
Since critical value of test statistic is lower than computed value, null hypothesis (Ho) can be rejected and it
can be concluded that there is significant difference between mean ratings of concepts P2 and P1.

d) Market Positioning and Choice of the concept

In order to assess the competitive positions of the four product concepts and the existing brands, we utilized
perceptual maps generated with the following steps:
i. Firstly, we carried out principal component analysis (PCA) to obtain the number of factors explaining
most of the variability among observed data.
ii. We conducted the factor analysis with the factor selected in the aforesaid first step to find out
potentially lower number of unobserved factors.
iii. Finally, we obtained perceptual maps of the different brands and four product concepts.

a. (i) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

We conducted PCA using the ratings data of each attribute/ benefit as well as overall ratings of
detergents of different brands and product concepts. Following is the result summary of the analysis carried
out:
 Table 14 Eigen Analysis of the Correlation Matrix
Eigenval 3.049 2.006 1.562 1.230 0.680 0.581 0.349 0.221 0.189 0.129
ue 6 2 5 1 5 4 4 8 0 5
Proportio
0.305 0.201 0.156 0.123 0.068 0.058 0.035 0.022 0.019 0.013
n
Cumulati
0.305 0.506 0.662 0.785 0.853 0.911 0.946 0.968 0.987 1.000
ve

Table 15 Principal Component Analysis

PC1
Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8 PC9
0
- - - -
Mildness 0.09 0.44 0.00 0.18 0.33 0.08
0.47 0.22 0.59 0.07
on hands 3 9 8 7 5 9
7 4 2 4
- - - -
Superior 0.18 0.50 0.24 0.16 0.30 0.48
0.19 0.21 0.29 0.34
whiteness 5 4 8 7 4 6
7 9 9 4
Good for - - -
0.44 0.16 0.47 0.01 0.33 0.62 0.01
colored 0.18 0.12 0.02
7 3 5 8 1 2 7
clothes 3 9 7
- - - - - -
Has 0.14 0.15 - 0.22
0.48 0.02 0.10 0.46 0.10 0.46
fragrance 7 5 0475 1
3 6 0 3 2 0
- - - -
Affordable 0.15 0.34 0.09 0.17 0.09 0.23
0.01 0.73 0.02 0.45
(Price) 3 7 4 4 7 0
9 7 1 9
Usability in - - - - - - - -
0.45 0.21
Washing 0.26 0.04 0.29 0.21 0.13 0.01 0.13 0.71
5 5
Machine 1 7 4 3 8 0 3 2
Tough - - - - -
0.06 0.45 0.35 0.55 0.29
stains 0.30 0.39 0.11 0.09 0.00
6 2 7 6 0
removal 4 3 8 9 6
Cleans with - - - - -
0.33 0.43 0.01 0.26 0.25
only small 0.09 0.08 0.56 0.18 0.44
8 0 9 6 5
amount 2 7 4 0 4
Performanc - - - - - -
0.38 0.13 0.05 0.19
e with hard 0.25 0.36 0.08 0.64 0.42 0.00
0 1 4 1
water 7 9 6 1 2 6
Long - - - - -
0.23 0.18 0.48 0.33
Lasting 0.53 0.11 0.14 0.06 486 0.01
2 7 9 5
Foam 3 5 9 1 7
From the above result summary, it can be inferred that if we consider critical Eigenvalue of 1, 78.5%
of the variability in 10 attributes/benefits can be explained by 4 factors. However, considering the limitation of
the analytical tool, we considered 2 factors which would explain slightly more than half of the variation in all
of the 10 attributes / benefits.

b. (ii) Factor Analysis:

Further to PCA, we conducted factor analysis with two factors to find out potentially lower number
of unobserved factors which would explain the variability in available data. Following is the summary results
of the factor analysis conducted with no rotation:

Table 16 Unrotated Factor Loadings and Communalities

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Communality
Mildness on hands 0.163 -0.676 0.483
Superior whiteness 0.323 0.713 0.613
Good for colored clothes 0.780 0.231 0.662
Has fragrance -0.844 0.209 0.756
Affordable (Price) -0.033 0.217 0.048
 Usability in Washing Machine 0.795 -0.370 0.769
Tough stains removal 0.115 -0.430 0.198
Cleans with only small amount 0.591 0.610 0.721
Performance with hard water 0.663 -0.364 0.572
Long Lasting Foam 0.405 0.265 0.234

Variance 3.0496 2.0062 5.0558

% Var 0.305 0.201 0.506

Superior whiteness
0.8
Cleans with only small
amount
0.6
S
e 0.4 Long Lasting Foam
c Good for colored clothes
Has fragrance Affordable (Price)
o
0.2
n
d
0
F-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
a -0.2
c Performance with hard
water
t -0.4 Usability in Washing
o Tough stains removal Machine
r
-0.6
Mildness on hands
-0.8
F i r s t F a c t o r
Figure 5 Positioning of Detergent Features
Clearly, the first factor identified has a focus on the usability in washing machine and good performance with
colored clothes. On the other hand, second factor mostly centers on superior whiteness and affordability.

c. (iii) Perceptual Mapping:

With the aforesaid two factors and factor score calculated in the factor analysis, we averaged the factor scores
across responses for each detergent powder brand /product concept.
We defined the two factors based on their factor loading corresponding to each attribute / benefits as follows:

Table 17 Factors Extracted using Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor -1: Washing machine powder for colored clothes

Factor -2 : Affordable whitening powder for hand wash

Based on their factor score, a perceptual map with Factor – 1 and Factor- 2 as defined above can be plotted for
different brands / product concepts as follows:
 1.2

Affordable whitening powder for hand wash

1
PC4
0.8
Rin
0.6 PC3
Wheel PC2
0.4

0.2 PC1

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.2 Surf
-0.4

-0.6
Ariel
-0.8

Washing machine powder for colored clothes

Figure 6 Brand Positioning and Potential Product Positioning

Table 18 Factors at Group Centroid

Brand Factor-1 Factor-2

Rin -0.446 0.924
Wheel -0.823 0.685
Ariel 0.730 -0.585
Surf 0.511 -0.119
PC1 0.492 0.393
PC2 0.859 0.656
PC3 0.537 0.478
PC4 -0.128 0.963

PC 4’s characteristics are the same as the current Tide Plus offering. From the perceptual map above,
it can be seen that it is perceived as a good whitening detergent at low costs but not as a washing machine
powder. Rin and Wheel are seen as good and affordable whitening detergents whereas Surf and Ariel are seen
as expensive washing machine powders, which are good for colours.
We, therefore, can see that there is a significant gap which exists in the detergent market (As shown
by the shaded area). All our new product concepts P1, P2 and P3 are positioned to exploit this gap. But, P2 is
positioned much more distinctly with respect to both these axes (factors).

Conclusions
 Form the consumer perspective, mildness on hands, goodness for colored clothes, fragrance, affordability,
usability in washing machine are the most important factors.
 There is ample opportunity for a new variant in the detergent powder market and launch of new variant the
detergent should not face much difficulty in customer trials.
 There is a positioning gap in the detergent powder market and there is untapped need for a detergent which
has usability in washing machine, has good performance with both white and colored clothes and is
affordable at the same time.
 The current Tide Plus detergent is perceived as merely an affordable whitening detergent powder and not a
detergent that can be used in washing machine.
 A new variant from Tide, therefore, has a good potential which can be perceived as a washing machine
powder and is good for colored clothes as well in addition to the attributes / benefits of current Tide Plus.

Limitations
 Due to the limited resources, the reach to contact the respondents has been constrained due to which
the results of this report cannot be generalized for the entire customer base of detergent powder. In addition to
this, the overall number of responses is very less, both for the qualitative and quantitative portions to actually
represent the whole consumer population. The results of current study cannot be generalized without prior
testing in to other cultural settings. Future researcher can boost the results of current test by studying the other
regions of India using similar type of study.

References
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghari_Detergent
 http://strategicmoves.wordpress.com/tag/detergent-market-in-india/
 http://www.indiastat.com/industries/18/industrialsectors/107700/soapsdetergentsanddyes/11391/stats.as
px
 http://www.mxmindia.com/2012/01/ghari-ousts-wheel-to-be-detergent-no-1-in-oct-nov-2011/
 http://www.mxmindia.com/2012/01/ghari-ousts-wheel-to-be-detergent-no-1-in-oct-nov-2011/
 http://www.indiacatalog.com/web_directory/chemicals/408.html
 http://business.mapsofindia.com/top-brands-india/top-detergent-brands-in-india.html
 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-04-22/news/29463111_1_ghari-detergents-indian-
detergent-market-detergent-brands
 http://ankitmarketing.blogspot.in/2012/01/detergent-wars-nirma-wheel-and-ghari.html
 http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/1089907/soaps_and_detergents_global_outlook.pdf
 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-05-06/news/29517095_1_ghari-detergent-brand-
nirma
 http://www.infodriveindia.com/india-export-data/detergent-export-data.aspx
 http://www.indiatogether.org/environment/articles/tlink-1002.htm
 http://www.planetexim.net/Product-Data/Export-India/detergent-cake.aspx
 http://www.reportlinker.com/report/search/theme/liquid_detergent
 http://catalogs.indiamart.com/products/liquid-detergents.html
 http://suranjanmktg.blogspot.in/2011/10/check-out-retailer-magazine-july-2011.html
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide_%28brand%29
 http://www.euromonitor.com/laundry-care-in-india/report
 http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/laundry-detergents/buying-guide.htm
 http://adage.com/article/news/p-g-reinvents-laundry-150-million-tide-pods-launch/227208/
 http://www.ihs.com/products/chemical/planning/ceh/surfactants-household-detergents.aspx
 http://www.equitymaster.com/research-it/sector-info/consprds/consprds-products.html

Annexure:

Quantitative Survey:

Q1. Which medium or mediums do you use presently at home for cleaning clothes? In case of more than one
medium, please list all the mediums that apply.
1 Detergent – Powder
2 Detergent – Liquid
3 Detergent – Bar
4 If others, please specify -

Q2a. Which brands of detergent powder due you use presently at home? In case of more than one brand,
please list all the brands that apply.
1 Ariel
2 Surf
3 Tide
4 Rin
5 Wheel
6 If others, please specify -

Q2b. Which brands of detergent powder have you used in the past?
1 Ariel
2 Surf
 3 Tide
4 Rin
5 Wheel
6 If others, please specify -

Q3. Do you own a washing machine?

Yes
No

Q4. When you buy a detergent powder which of the following features do you consider? Please indicate their
importance on a scale of 1 to 5.
If you think a feature is very important then give it a rating of 5 and if you think it’s not an important feature
then give it a rating of 1.
Least Imp <-------------------> Most Imp
Feature 1 2 3 4 5
1. Mildness on hands
2. Superior whiteness
3. Good for colored clothes
4. Has fragrance
5. Affordable (Price)
6. Usability in washing machine
7. Tough stains removal
8. Cleans with only small amount
9. Performance with hard water
10. Long lasting foam

Q5. Why do you use the current brand? Please indicate most appropriate statement from the below:
4 This is exactly the product I have always wanted to use
3 This is the best available brand in the market
2 It is a force of habit
1 There is really no other choice

Q6. A leading detergent company is planning to introduce some new types of detergents. Can you please share
your views regarding these different types of detergents? (Present P1, P2, P3 and P4 for alternate concepts.
Please fill up the table below using information received)
If you think the brand does very well on a feature then give it a rating of 5 and if you think it’s not doing well
then give it a rating of 1.
Arial Surf Rin Whee P P P P
l 1 2 3 4
Overall Rating
1. Mildness to hands
2. Overall Superior cleaning
3. Superior Whitening
4. Price
5. Fragrance
6. Cleans with only small amount
7. Good for Coloured Clothes
8. Tough Stain Removal
9. Performance with Hard Water
10. Usability in Washing Machine

Q7. Which of the following statements is closest to your opinion of this product compared to other brands of
detergents you have used or heard about and also new products we have just talked about?
Statement P1 P2 P3 P4
1. There are other detergents which are exactly the same as this product
2. There are other detergents which are almost similar to this one
3. There are other detergents which are somewhat similar but not really the same
as this one
4. This detergent is quite different from current detergents

Q8. Please tell us which of the following statement comes closest to how you feel about buying the product if
it were available to your nearest store.
Statement P1 P2 P3 P4
1. I definitely would not buy it
2. I most probably would not buy it
3. I might or might not buy it
4. I would most probably buy it
5. I definitely would buy it

Q9. Please tick the relevant fields.

Age Occupation Education Yearly household income, before taxes
1. Below 25 1. 1.Matriculation
1. More than INR 5 LPA
years Professional (10th)
2. Self-
2. 25-35 years 2. Class 12th 2. 3L-5L per annum
employed
3. 3.
3. 36-45 years 3. 1L-3L per annum
Housewife Undergraduate
4. 46-55 years 4. Others 4. Postgraduate 4. Less than 1 LPA
5. Above 55
years
Thank You!
6. Refuse to
Answer