SUBMITTED BY-GROUP 6 SEC C

Amrita Pattanyak (16125)

Anupam Kumar Meena (16128)
Kamal Chelani (16137)
Ketan Kunjekar (16139)
Kunal Panwar (16140)
Mangala Devi (16142)

BAY-MADISON CASE SUBMITTED TO

DR. M R Suresh

ANALYSIS

February 1
Contents
CASE FACTS ................................................................................................................................. 2
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................. 2
THE PROPOSAL ........................................................................................................................... 2
NATIONAL RESEARCH ASOSIATION ..................................................................................... 2
Nature of Problem and Sample ................................................................................................... 2
Sample ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Nature of the problem ................................................................................................................. 4
Staff involved in the project: ....................................................................................................... 4
Time Involved for the research: .................................................................................................. 4
Cost estimated: ............................................................................................................................ 4
Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4
Merits .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Demerits ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 5
The Progressive Research Group .................................................................................................... 5
Company profile:......................................................................................................................... 5
Nature of the problem ................................................................................................................. 5
Sample: ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Information about staff: ............................................................................................................... 6
Time and Cost: ............................................................................................................................ 6
Merits: ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Demerits: ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion:.................................................................................................................................. 6
Final Conclusion: ............................................................................................................................ 7

1
CASE FACTS

 The case starts in 1976. During the time Bay Madison Inc. was one of the largest
advertising firm. They faced a problem of how best to conduct a survey on Rill, product of
Ellis Company, one of the agency’s clients.
 Rill was first introduced in 1923 as a powdered cleanser. Since 1938 the company had
promoted Rill both as a cleanser and as a laundry wash water additive.
 Over the years about 50% of advertising had featured the product solely as a cleanser, 30%
as laundry additive and 20% as a dual purpose product.
 In initial years, the product was sold well but during the past 5 years unit sales had declined
considerably.
 Rill had 6 major competitors in the cleansing segment and 2 major competitors in the
laundry segment.
 The company and agency personnel were in dilemma about whether to market the product
as a cleanser or as a laundry additive or as both. Thus to take the right decision there was
a need for market research.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The research objective was to decide whether to promote the product as a cleanser, a laundry
additive or a dual-purpose product and to find out the consumer attitude towards the product.

THE PROPOSAL
Mr Roberts and his staff drew up a research proposal, which they had forwarded to six marketing
research firms, out of which only three firms were selected based on several parameters. These
were.
1. National Research Associates (NRA)
2. The Progressive Research Group (PRG)

NATIONAL RESEARCH ASOSIATION

Nature of Problem and Sample
Marketing Problems
In the report submitted by the National Research Team they says that the present research
proposal is based on the assumption that it is critical to obtain answers to the subsequent
marketing difficulties;
1. Is it advisable to remain to promote Rill as a multipurpose product?

2
 2. If it is, should its many uses be promoted simultaneously or separately and what are the
promotional tactics which would be most effective?
3. If it is not desirable to continue its promotion as a multipurpose product, for what uses
could rill be most effectively promoted?
4. What would be the most effective promotional methods for the uses decided upon?
5. Would it be worthwhile to launch another product, or possibly the same product below a
different name, for either of its uses?
6. What are the ways in which Rill distribution, packaging, pricing and merchandising could
be upgraded?

Sample

Market survey
The market survey directed by the National Research Association was like this,
It was a quota-controlled, weighted, national sample of 2275 house wives be employed. The
associated table presents an unweighted sample in amount to house hold numbers and the
projected weighted sample.
Intensive study
Quota-controlled samples of 450 white and 150 black homemakers will be used
Laboratory Study
The number of respondents differs from test to test, but the samples will be calculated to ensure
statistical trustworthiness.

Rural Urban Total

Farm Non-farm Unweig Weight Unweig Weig
Unweig weigh Unweig Weight hted ed hted hted
hted ted hted ed
Southeast 44 44 76 76 76 132 252 252
Northeast 101 101 110 110 614 614 825 825
Midwest 126 63 139 70 837 436 1102 569
West 179 90 107 53 324 162 610 305
South Central 22 22 60 60 242 242 324 324
Total 472 320 492 369 2149 1586 3113 2275

3
Nature of the problem
Women may think of it mostly in one sense or the another and those who regard it as a cleanser
may not be willing to use it as a laundry addictive or vice versa. In addition to this possible
overall problem, there are certain marketing specifies which may be also important.
1. Is the product right?
2. What about its physical characteristics?
3. What about its psychological connections?
4. What about the packaging (size of the package, nature of package, labelling and
package)?

Staff involved in the project:

 R. J. Morrison: He is the research coordinator, major client and agency contact in the firm.
In terms of education, he is a P.H.D with B.Sc. and M.Sc. graduates. Also with an
experience in research as a study director, consultant and research associate. 7 years of
teaching experience in teaching psychology in 2 universities.
 A. Milton: He is the study director. Educational background of economics. He has 10 years
of experience in research in a prominent UK firm and several other English companies.
 H.W. Rolland: He is the associate study director. Currently pursuing P.H.D with M.Sc.
degree and will coordinate the intensive and important phases in the research.
 R.W. Brown: He is also an associate director. A university graduate in sociology and
statistics has a 10 years of experience in research.
There are 4 more staff members involved in this project who were university graduates too.

Time Involved for the research:

The research will take 12 weeks after the design for the research is finalized.

Cost estimated:
Total cost estimated is $52000 of which 50% to be paid at the initial stage and 50% after the
research is completed.

Methodology
 Market survey: face to face interview with 2275 homemakers who used Rill across various
geographical area.
 Intensive interview study: by taking 2 hour depth-interview with 600 consumers.
 The various study techniques that was used by NRA are:

4
 (a) The Personification Test,
(b) The Thematic Apperception Test,
(c) Word Association Test, and
(d) The Semantic Differential Test, among others.
Merits
 Very detailed survey.
 Research objectives well defined.
 Provides description of consumer habits, practices, attitudes, perception and motivation.
 Consumer awareness about advertising is judged.
 Evaluation of the advertising themes and approaches used by Rill is done well.
Demerits
 Cost is more.
 More than required efforts are put in to do the research.
 Demand of advance payment.
 Complexity is more.

Conclusion
This company is more into determining and targeting the consumer’s psychology. By gathering
and using this data, the company can make decision on Rill according to the consumer’s
psychology.

The Progressive Research Group

Company profile:
One of the pioneering market research company, which was established in 1948 and have been
active ever since. Company has handled plethora of projects ranging in size and has been clients
of largest consumer goods manufacturers.

Nature of the problem

 To determine whether the multiple feature of Rill is undermining the product usage
especially among the women, where they are hesitant if it is a cleanser or laundry
additive.
 To come up with the right marketing mix.
 To determine the psychological connotation.
 Selecting the right packaging size.

5
Sample:
 Stratified sampling technique will be used.
 The sample design is probability sample.
 The size of samples will be 750.
 Samples will be taken from housewives.
 Primary sampling units to be selected proportionally and randomly across the country.
 Reasons for selecting this type and size of the sample:
a) Minimum of 150 samples should be there for any result or conclusion.
b) Level of sampling accuracy.

Information about staff:

 Highly trained and qualified team of 723 workers.
 Highly connected network of 20 full time supervisors.
 Competent interviewers whose background range from high social class to lower strata of
society.
 Interviewers were people friendly, extrovert person with high level of intelligence.

Time and Cost:

 Project Duration:12 weeks
 Projected cost: $23900 plus or minus 10 percent.

Merits:
 One of the oldest market research Company, thus have deep insights about consumer and
markets, thus could be an ideal collage for the company as it has also experience in
consumer goods.
 Relatively cost effective or cheaper compared to national research associate, at estimate
of $239000 with ±10%
 Simple technique.

Demerits:
 Considering only house wives in sample lead to sampling frame error.
 They focused broadly on brand personality and brand image which indicates surrogate
information error.

Conclusion:
Progressive research group is am experienced market research company, in this study they are
using stratified random sampling and using only housewives as samples leading to surrogate
6
information error. The objective of the research demands a wider scope, though it is cost
effective and simple it cannot give a clear picture, thus it is better to consider other alternative.

Final Conclusion:
We feel that Mr. Roberts should go with the National Research Association. Although the cost is
bit higher than the Progressive Research Group, but since the process and the research is more
exhaustive, the cost will be justified. The company is more concerned about the consumer rather
than the product appearance, hence the research can give important insights about the costumers
which can be used in future also.
On the other hand, the Progressive Research group are doing the following errors:
1. Only women being selected for conducting interviews is a sampling frame error.
2. It is doing its field testing in Chicago there by assuming a true representative of the
population of the customers of Rill. Hence it is a selection error.
3. The proposal is indicating a surrogate information error where the company is
considering brand as the main objective, and not Rill as a product.