A study on consumer

behavior of farmers
reguarding selected brands
Introduction of NFL
• NFL Plant estb. in 1956 as Nangal
fertilizers & chemicals ltd(NFCL).

Main consideration regarding its

location:
II. Upgrading the area
III. Employment opportunities
IV. Availability of electricity & water
NFL
• Second largest producer of fertilizer in
India
• Based on electrolysis of water
• Production of 35.49 MTPD of urea

• Produce heavy water used in atomic

reactors as moderators
• Well equipped R&D,searching the
alternatives of petrol using H2 and
methanol
Products
• Liquid oxygen
• Liquid nitrogen
• Nitric acid
• Ammonium nitrate
• Methanol
• Industrial sulphur
• Sodium nitrate
• Carbon dioxide
• Urea( prills)
NFL operating plants

Naya Nangal(Punjab)
Bathinda(punjab)
Panipat(Haryana)
Vijaypur(Madhya pradesh)
Corporate Objectives
• Productivity
• Marketing & consumer service
• Organizational growth
• Research & development
• Obligations to society
• Maintaining sphere of influence
Competitive Structure
Objectives of study
• A Study On Consumer Behavior Of
farmers Regarding Selected Brands Of
Urea with special Reference To Kisan Urea

3. consumption behavior of farmers

4. satisfaction level of consumer
5. perception of consumer
Research Methodology
• Research design
• Data collection
• universe
• Population
• Sampling Unit
• Sample Size
Data analysis
Showing the factor affects more to
purchase NFL product

40
35
Response

30
25
20 Percentage
15
10
5
0
y
it

ty
y
ce

il
it

ti
c
ri

al

an
fa
P

u
t
Q

di

Q
re
C
Influential factor

Factors influencing farmers

70
60
50
40 Number of Response
30 Percentage
20
10
0
r
r

ny

TV

e
le

ap
pa
ea

sp
om
D

ew
C

N
Showing credit facility given by
different brands
Number of Respondents

120
100
80
Yes
60
40 No
20
0

O
F
O

FL

C
FC

H
IF

IB
R
K
Term of credit facility

Term of credit facility

20
Response

15
For six months
10
For one year
5

0 For more than

O
O

one year
F
L

C
C

C
F

H
N
F

IB
IF

R
K
Credit facility satisfaction
Number of Respondents

Satisfaction with credit facility

25
20
15 Yes
10 No
5
0 O
O

C
F

C
C

H
N

R
F

IB
IF

R
K
 satisfaction level regarding
performance of company’s
Product

18
16 Highly
Response

14 Satisfied
12
Satisfied
10
8
6 Indifferent
4
2 Dissatisfied
0
O
)
O

Highly
F

C
L

C
F
C

Dissatisfied
N

R
F

IB
IF

R
K
 Expectation of farmers towards their company

18
16
14
12 IFFCO)
10 NFL
Source: Field work
8 RCF
6 KRIBHCO
4
2
0
By reducing price By improving quality By making available By giving discount
at suitable places
 Resp[ondents
Preference of NFL w ith IIFCO

30
25
20
NFL
15
Your brand

ty
10

n
li
a
5

o
u

ti
ty
0 Q

o
m
e

ti
c

ro
ri

a
P

p
Q

s
le
a
S
Comparision of NFL with KRIBHCO Comparision of NFL with RCF

25 30

25
20
20
15 NFL
NFL
15
Your brand Your brand
10
10

5 5

0 0
Price Quality Quantity Sales Price Quality Quantity Sales
promotion promotion
Orientation towards other brands

90
80
70
Responses

60
50 Yes
40 No
30
20
10
0
IFFCO RCF KRIBHCO
 Sales promotion activities by RCF Sales promotion activities by IFFCO

45 60
40
35 50
30 40
25 Number of Respondent
Number of Respondent
20 Percentage 30
15 Percentage
10 20
5
0 10
0
unt

rs
ility
co

the
Dis

fac

nt
yo

rs
ty
cou
e

ility
ty

c ili
dit

the
An
m

cili

me
ram

Dis
Cre

fac

e fa

yo
g fa

m
dit
ro g

An
Fre
gra
stin

Cre
al p

pro
l te
ion

u.
soi

Ed
t
uca

e
Fre
Ed

Sales promotion activities by KRIBHCO

sales promotion activity carried out by company
70
50 60
45 50
40 40 Number of Respondent
35
Response

30 Percentage
30 20
25 Percentage 10
20 0
15
10
t
un

rs
5
ility

the
co

ac

e
Dis

ity

yo
0 m
it f

il
ram

An
fac
ed
Cr

ro g

g
Discount Credit Educational Free soil Any others

tin
lp

tes
na

facility programme testing oil

o
ati

es
uc

facility
Fre
Ed
 Swot Analysis
• Strengths
2. Excellent track record in terms of profit &
productivity
3. Competent & qualified personnel
4. Educated trade union.
5. Experience of 35 years in production &
trading
• Weaknesses
7. Seasonal requirement
8. Utilization of resources
• Opportunities
2. Increasing national & international
demand for Urea
3. Increasing awareness among people for
use of fertilizers
• Threats
• 1. Import of fertilizers from china
7. Cost of product quite higher than others
8. Well established competitors like
KRIBHKO, RCF, IFFCO etc

•
Conclusion
• With respect to other companies
• Satisfied with NFL’s quality product
• Availability of kisan urea
• relevant Credit facility
• Prices are quite higher
• Poor commercial advertising of product
• Transportation needs help