Project No.

: 2 (Part 1)

BRAND TRACKER

A report

submitted to

Prof. S. Govindrajan

In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the course

Product and Brand Management

On 20th August 2009

By

Atul Saboo

Sourabh Dhariwal

Tarun Daga

Uma Balakrishnan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................3
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.......................................................................................4
LAY’S OVER THE YEARS..........................................................................................5
CONSUMER SURVEY...............................................................................................8
QUESTIONNAIRE...................................................................................................13
VARIABLES STUDIED IN QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................17
RESULTS AND FINDINGS.......................................................................................19
NET TAKEAWAY.................................................................................................... 32
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................35

2
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study focuses on the study of the brand Lay’s Chips. We traced the
brand from its inception to its current position in India. The BAV model was
used to find out Brand Strength and Brand Stature of Lay’s, in comparison
with the competitors. A questionnaire methodology was followed with a
sample size of 40. Responses were evaluated on the basis of the four
pillars of the BAV model. Lay’s was found to have the highest scores on all
four factors. It emerged as the leader among snack food brands like Uncle
Chipps’, Kurkure, Pringles and Bingo.

We also used the Reynold and Gutman’s Laddering method. 8 individual

personal interviews were conducted. Means-End chains were explored for
this segment. This method was considered the most appropriate because
it would aid in revealing consumers’ cognitive structure related to
purchase and consumption of chips. The objective of the study is to
understand how the consumers relate a distinctive attribute of chips to
obtaining higher values in life.

Results revealed that values attained by the consumption of chips are

primarily Positivity, Self-Control, Independence, Accomplishment and
Belongingness. The consequences preceding the values were saving time,
socializing, experimentation, limiting the waste of food, feel fresh, change
from the regular monotonous food habits etc. these were derived from
attributes of chips, both abstract and concrete.

The study helped us understand the patterns behind purchase of chips

and what psychosocial benefits one derives from them. Also, it helped
track where Lay’s stood in the eyes of consumers.

3
 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

Praxis Business School

20 August 2009

To Prof. S Govindrajan

From Atul Saboo

Sourabh Dhariwal

Tarun Daga

Uma Balakrishnan

Subject: Brand Tracker- Lay’s

Dear Prof. S. Govindrajan,

We are enclosing a report which involves an analysis of the brand Lay’s.

We have discussed the evolution of the brand and consumer perceptions
regarding the brand Lay’s and its competitors. Through two models, BAV
and Laddering, we have also analyzed the brand’s image.

Regards,

UMA BALAKRISHNAN

4
 LAY’S OVER THE YEARS
INCEPTION
1932- Herman W. Lay started a snack food operation in Tenessee

1938 – Herman Lay buys a potato chip manufacturer, naming it “HW Lay
and Company”

1944- It was shortened to “The Lay’s Company”.

It was the first snack company to launch TV advertisements with lines like
“So crisp you can hear the freshness” and “de-Lay-cious”.

1961- It merged with the Frito Company to form the Frito-Lay Inc.

1965- The company became a part of PepsiCo and is now its food division.

1993- FritoLay comes to India, launching Lay’s under the name of Ruffles
Lay’s

It has various brands under this division, from potato chips and cereals to
baked snacks and dips and salsas.

THE INDIAN SNACK FOOD MARKET

A snack is usually described as a small quantity of food eaten between
meals or in place of a meal. Snacks are considered a part of Consumer
Convenience/ Packaged Foods segment. Snack food generally comprises
bakery products, ready-to-eat mixes, chips, namkeen and other light
processed foods.

In India, snacking options come aplenty, be it fried snacks like samosas

and pakode or chaklis, murhi and the like. Regional specialties and
delicacies add to the flavor of such variety. These are items mostly
prepared at home, especially during festivals or when one has guests at
home in the evening. But the tastes and needs of the Indian market have
changed over the past decade. Due to the large number of expanding
nuclear families and the number of female professionals, India has
witnessed a significant rise in the demand for ready-to-eat snacks. In
India, though there is no particular time for snacks, normally they are

5
consumed at teatime. The branded segment is growing at around 25% per
annum. This is due to various reasons like the growth of multiplex-goers
and people snacking at home.

According to the ministry of food processing, the snack food industry is

worth Rs 100 billion in value and over 4,00,000 tonnes in terms of volume.
The branded snacks are sold at least 25% higher than the unbranded
products.

Apart from traditional "unbranded" snacks, Indian consumers today have a

variety of "branded" savories to choose from. While FritoLay dominates
the branded snacks market with its Kurkure and Lays’ brands, there are a
host of other players in the market including local players and unbranded
snacks.

LAY’S IN INDIA
Lay’s was first known to India as Ruffles Lay’s. Subsequently known as
Lay’s from FritoLay of PepsiCo, it has become the leading brand of snack
foods in the country. FritoLay has the various other brands in India,
namely:

• Lays (potato chips)

• Cheetos (extruded snacks)

• Ruffles

• Uncle Chipps

• Kurkure

• Quaker Oats (breakfast cereal)

There are other players like Haldiram’s and newer entrants like Amul’s
Munch Time, Parle’s Hippo and ITC’s Bingo, which are scrambling for a
share of the snack pie. Yet Frito Lay commands a remarkable market
share of 45%, followed by Haldiram’s at 27% and ITC at 16%.

The Frito Company and the Lay’s Company both started separately in
1932 which merged to form FritoLay. In 1944, it became the first snack
food manufacturer to purchase airtime for commercials, using a mnemonic
called Oscar the happy Potato. In 1963, the company started using
another slogan “Betcha Can’t Eat Just One”. In 1965, comedian Bert Lahr

6
began appearing in ads in which he attempted--always unsuccessfully--to
eat just one Lay's chip. Annual revenues for Frito-Lay exceeded $180
million by 1965, when the company had more than 8,000 employees and
46 manufacturing plants. 1969 saw the brand go national. During the
1970s, the Lay's brand was challenged not only by more aggressive
regional brands but also by such newfangled chips as Pringles and Chipos.

In 1991, Lay’s chips were reformulated to cater to the taste buds of the
age, which preferred less salty chips. The sodium content was reduced.
Promotions for this new version of the country’s favourite chip were
backed by the line “Too Good to Eat just one!” In 1998 Frito-Lay began
selling its “Wow!” line of low-fat and no-fat versions of Lay’s and other
brands of chips under it. They also had intermittent changes in its taglines
like “Lay’s. Want some?”. In 2009, Lay’s is planning to promote Lay’s
internationally under the tagline “Happiness is Simple” and “Simply Made.
Simply Good.” In India, the brand is being marketed by Saif Ali Khan and
Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Others like actors Preity Zinta and Rahul Khanna
were also used from time to time. The slogan the Indian arm uses is “Be A
Little Dillogical”. This is in keeping with Lay’s efforts to blend with the local
market it caters to, be it in Greece, China, India or Lithuaina. The flavours
of the brand are also tweaked to suit the local palate.

SAMPLE PROFILE:

BRAND ASSET VALUATOR (BAV) SURVEY:

• Number of Respondents: 40

• Age: 21-28

• Qualification: Post-graduate students

REYNOLDS’ AND GUTMAN’S LADDERING METHOD:

• Number of Respondents: 8

• Age: 21-28

• Qualification: Post-graduate students

7
 CONSUMER SURVEY
To test our objective of analyzing the brand Lay’s, we have chosen to
study it through the following two models:

• Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) Model

• Reynold and Gutman’s Laddering Method

BRAND ASSET VALUATOR (BAV) MODEL:

BAV is a database of consumer perception of brands, created and
managed by Brand Asset Consulting, a division of Young & Rubicam
Brands. It provides information to enable firms to improve the marketing
decision-making process and to manage brands better.

BAV provides comparative measures of the equity value of thousands of

brands across hundreds of different categories, as well as a set of
strategic brand management tools for planning brand extensions, joint
branding ventures, and other strategies designed to maintain and grow
brand value. BAV has also been linked to a unique set of financial
analytics, which allows determining a brand’s contribution to a company’s
intangible value.

There are four key components of brand health in BAV. Each of these is
derived from various measures that relate to different aspects of
consumers’ brand perceptions and that together trace the progression of a
brand’s development. These four components for determining brand value
are:

1. Differentiation

2. Relevance

3. Esteem

4. Knowledge

But the disadvantages of this model prevent one from using it in all
accuracy. Firstly, the model is proprietary to Young and Rubicam and can
be used in entirety only by them. Secondly, the four factors may not be

8
relevant across a wide number of product categories and they tend to
remain abstract in nature.

9
DIFFERENTIATION
Differentiation is the ability for a brand to be distinguished from its
competitors. A brand should be as unique as possible. Brand health is built
and maintained by offering a set of differentiating promises to consumers
and by delivering those promises to leverage value. Differentiation is a
measure of how distinct the consumers perceive a particular brand to be.
It is this difference that enables the brands to charge a premium.

RELEVANCE
Relevance is a measure of the actual and perceived importance of the
brand to a large consumer market segment. This gauges the personal
appropriateness of a brand to consumers and is strongly tied to household
penetration. Relevance is simply a measure of how well suited the brand’s
offering is to the consumer’s life.

ESTEEM
Esteem is the perceived quality and consumer perceptions about the
growing or declining popularity of a brand. Does the brand keep its
promises? The consumer’s response to a marketer’s brand building
activity is driven by his perception of factors like quality and popularity.
Both vary by country and culture. It is a function of positive brand
communication and brand experience. It shows us the regard that the
consumer has for the brand.

KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge is the extent of the consumer’s awareness of the brand and
understanding its identity. The awareness levels about the brand, and
what it means, shows the intimacy that consumers share with the brand.
True knowledge of the brand comes through building of the brand.

Together, these factors give us the two major aspects on which a brand is
judged. They are brand stature and brand strength.

10
BRAND STRENGTH
This is a combination of Differentiation and Relevance. As these pillars are
indicators of where the brand is likely to shape out in the future, Brand
Strength is a leading Indicator.

BRAND STATURE
This is a combination of Esteem and Knowledge. It gives a sense of the
brand’s present and past. Brand stature tends to, over time, mimic brand
strength and is thus a lagging indicator.

Brand strength and brand stature are then plotted against each other on a
high-low matrix called the Power Grid. The position of the brand on the
Power Grid shows the current status of the brand as well as its future
potential. The BAV theory can, with this construct, map out the typical life
cycle of brands.

APPLICATIONS
It can be used to study:

• The health of a brand in comparison to the category health

• Future direction that a brand is likely to take

• Key image drivers of the category

• Specific image and personality perceptions across consumer

segments

• Definition of the problematic, key and future opportunity target

audience for the brand

• Power brands

• Brand portfolios

• Feasibility studies for new markets and segments

• Positioning / Repositioning exercises

11
• Archetypes

• Understanding target audience landscape

• The key brand task

12
 QUESTIONNAIRE
1. When you think of snacky food (chips etc.) which 5 brands
come to your mind.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

 For the following parameters, please rank each brand in order

of how it stands (1 being highest and 5 being the lowest)

CHARACTERISTIC/ Lay’s Kurkur Bingo Uncle Pringles

BRAND e Chipps’
2. Crispness/freshne
ss
3. Variety
4. Quantity in pack
5. Taste
6. Availability

7. Please mention any 5 advertisements of snacky foods/chips

you remember?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

8. Which of the brands do you think is the market leader? Please

rank as 1 being the highest and 5 being the lowest.
• Lays
• Kurkure
• Bingo
• Uncle Chipps’
• Pringles

13
 9. Please identify which brand each of the following taglines
belongs to. You need not confine to only the 5 brands
discussed above.

• No fun...without desipann
• Once you pop, you can’t stop
• So fresh, every munch packs a bigger crunch
• Har program ka main food
• No confusion. Great combination
• Be a little dillogical
• Khake Mast
• Bole Mere Lips
• No one can eat just one

10. Name the brand which you would associate with the
following attributes. You can tick more than one brand.
Lay’s Kurkure Bingo Uncle Pringles
Chipps’
Cool
Classy
Imaginati
ve
Trustwort
hy
Mischievo
us
Also pick one of these 5 words which describe you best.

11. Name one brand out of the above you would recommend to
others. Why?
• Lay’s
• Pringles
• Bingo
• Uncle Chipps’
• Kurkure

12. Which of the following brands do you feel caters best to the
market?
• Lay’s
• Pringles
• Bingo

14
• Uncle Chipps’
• Kurkure

15
13. Identify the logos with their brands.

14. Which of these brands would you like to associate yourself

with?
• Lay’s
• Pringles
• Bingo
• Uncle Chipps’
• Kurkure

RESPONDENT DETAILS:
 Name:
 Age:
 Sex:

16
 VARIABLES STUDIED IN
QUESTIONNAIRE

DIFFERENTIATION
In the questionnaire administered, we have five questions which pertain to
differentiation. They are Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 and Q6. These gauge the
importance of characteristics of a chip like freshness, taste, variety etc.
These factors act as differentiating factors when one purchases a
particular brand of chips.

RELEVANCE
We have three questions pertaining to the relevance of the brand in the
eyes of the consumer. They are questions 10 and 12. Q10 asks consumers
to categorize each brand with personifying adjectives (cool, classy,
imaginative, trustworthy and mischievous). Also, they had to choose which
adjective describes them the best. We have tried developing a personality-
brand fit.

Q13 is about which brands cater to the market’s needs best. This clearly
points out if the brand is appropriate to the consumer or not.

ESTEEM
Questions 8, 11, 12 and 15 will reveal the esteem held by the brand Lay’s
in the consumers’ eyes. Q8 asks which brand the consumers feel is the
market leader. The perception will show us whether people only perceive
their favourite brand as market leader. It would show the respect
consumers have for Lay’s. Q11 asks which brand they would recommend
to others. It would show the trust people place in the brand. Q14 asked
which brand the consumers would like to associate themselves with which
again reveals if they hold it in high enough regard to be associated with.

17
KNOWLEDGE
Questions 1, 7, 9 and 14 are to reveal the amount of knowledge
consumers have about brands. Q1 and Q7 clearly test top-of-mind recall
for the number of brands in the category one can remember as well as five
advertisements of chip brands. Q9 asks consumers to identify taglines to
their respective brands. This would show if the mental association
between the brand and its taglines/ads is strong or weak. In Q13, we
showed them logos of the brands and asked them to identify the brand
they belong to.

18
 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

BRAND ASSET VALUATOR MODEL

Lay’s by far, was unanimously seen to the brand with highest scoring on
all four pillars of the BAV model.

DIFFERENTIATION
To calculate the differentiation factor among various brands, we quizzed
the respondents on certain attributes related to the product category-
snacky packaged foods/chips etc. The question which was asked was-

Q2- Q6. For the following parameters please rank each brand in order of
how it stands on a scale of 1-5; 1 being the highest and 5 being the lowest

A. Crispness

B. Variety

C. Quantity in a packet(with respect to the price)

D. Taste

E. Availability

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS

To analyse the data, we assigned certain weights to each rank. Rank 1
was given a weightage of 5, rank 2 was given a weightage of 4, rank 3 was
given a weightage of 3 and so on. The total number of responses for each
rank for a particular brand was multiplied with the respective weightage
attached, to derive the total score of that particular brand. Scores for
other brands were calculated on the same basis. This analysis was done
for all the 5 above mentioned attributes. The score of each attribute of
respective brands were added up to derive the final score of each brand.
This particular finding is reflected in the graph below.

19
The graph above shows that our product ranks 1st on the differentiation
factor, followed by Kurkure, Bingo, Uncle Chipps’ and Pringles. Lay’s has
been able to differentiate itself due to crispness of its chips, variety, taste
and easy availability. However, it doesn’t score well on the basis of the
quantity available in a pack. But this shortcoming is well taken care by
other differentiators available. Hence, we can conclude that Lay’s is a
highly differentiated product compared to its competitors.

Also, since it is a low level-of-involvement (LOI) product priced nominally

at Rs. 10-Rs. 20, people do not mind the fact that they are not “getting
their money’s worth” from Lay’s. The number of varieties offered by Lay’s
has close competition from the offering of FritoLay, Kurkure, while ITC’s
Bingo is inching closer to the big two. Lay’s suits the tastes of Indian
consumers for something tangy and ‘chatpata’ which plays with their
tongue and not their tummy. Not a single respondent felt that Uncle
Chipps’ caters best to the market, while Pringles scored just one.

20
RELEVANCE
To check if our brand Lay’s is relevant to its consumers we asked the
following questions to the respondents-

Q. Name the brand/s with which you would associate the following
attributes-

A. Cool

B. Classy

C. Imaginative

D. Trustworthy

E. Mischievous

Here, after this question we also asked the respondents to name one
attribute which they themselves relate to or the one which suits their
personality the best. This was done to check what the personality of a
respondent is and which brand according to him/her has the same
attribute. Hence, this would provide us with the information about the
brand which relates best to the consumer.

Q. Which one brand (out of the five mentioned) do you feel caters best to
the market.

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS

In the first question we did not restrict the respondents to choose only one
brand for a particular attribute. They were free to choose more than one
brand. For the first question, the score was given to the brands which fell
under that attribute which the respondent chose for his own personality.
Eg. If a respondent chose Classy as an attribute which suits him the best
and under classy he/she chose Lay’s and Pringles then both Lay’s and
Pringles score one point each. This was the approach followed to derive
the scores for this question for all the brands.

For the second question, we asked the respondents which brand they feel
caters best to the market. In this, the brands scored simply on the basis of
the number of times they were chosen as the brand which caters best to
the market.

21
Both of these scores were then added up to derive the final score of each
brand for the relevance factor. The graphical representation for relevance
factor is shown below-

The graph shows that 42% of the respondents relate to Lay’s and even
here it comes out to be the No. 1 brand. This is probably because Lay’s
has got various varieties to match all taste buds and its positioning,
advertisements etc. appeal not just to a certain segment, but to masses.
Hence, we can safely conclude that Lay’s is the most relevant brand to the
customers under the product category of snacky packaged food/chips. It is
followed by Kurkure, Bingo, Uncle Chipps and Pringles.

ESTEEM
To gauge the esteem level of our brand Lay’s we surveyed with the help of
the following questions:

Q.1. Which of these brands (out of the five brands mentioned) do you think
is the market leader? Rank all the brands on the scale of 1-5; 1 being the
highest and 5 being the lowest.

22
This question was asked to find out the perception of the respondents for
each brand. This showed us the perceived stature of each brand in the
eyes of the respondents.

Q.2. Name one brand which you would recommend to others.

It is normal that we recommend the best thing to others. Hence this

question was asked to find out that, when it comes to recommending a
brand to others, which brand scores the most. Hence, this will inform us
which brand is the best in the eyes of the respondents.

Q.3. Which one of these brands (out of the five brands mentioned) you
would like to associate yourself with?

This question again was asked to find the perceived stature of all the
brands in the eys of the consumers.

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS

Even here, for the 1st question, to analyse the data we assigned certain
weightage to each rank. Rank 1 was given a weightage of 5, rank 2 was
given a weightage of 4, rank 3 was given a weightage of 3 and so on. The
total number of responses for each rank for a particular brand was
multiplied with the respective weightage attached, to derive at the total
score of that particular brand. Scores for other brands were calculated on
the same basis.

For the 2nd and 3rd questions the score was given to all the brands on the
basis of the number of times each brand was chosen by the respondents.

To derive the total score on the esteem factor the scores of all the three
questions were added up. The graphical representation of the same is
shown below-

23
Here, Lay’s once again tops the lot. This clearly indicates that Lay’s enjoy
very high brand esteem in the market compared to its competitors.
Kurkure, Bingo, Uncle Chipps and Pringles follow Lay’s in the same order.

KNOWLEDGE
To calculate which brand is the most known brand in the market we
quizzed the respondents on the following questions:

Q.1 When you think of snacky food/chips which brand comes to your
mind? Name five.

Q.2 Please mention any five advertisements of snacky foods/chips which

you remember.

Q.3 Please identify which brand each of the taglines belong to. You need
not confine to only the mentioned five brands.

Q.4 Match the logos to their brands.

These four questions were asked to find out the top of the mind (TOM)
recall for the brands available in the market. Also, to find out if the
respondents can recognise the brand logos and if they can remember the
advertisements. The brand which scores the best on these parameters can

24
safely be regarded as the brand which has maximum visibility and which is
known the most.

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS

Even here, for the 1st and the 2nd question, to analyse the data we
assigned certain weightage to each rank. Rank 1 was given a weightage of
5, rank 2 was given a weightage of 4, rank 3 was given a weightage of 3
and so on. The total number of responses for each rank for a particular
brand was multiplied with the respective weightage attached, to derive at
the total score of that particular brand. Scores for other brands were
calculated on the same basis.

For the 1st and the 2nd question, we assigned certain points on the basis of
the brand and advertisement recalls. In the 1 st question the brand which
was recalled 1st was given a weightage of 5, second brand recalled was
given a weightage of 4 and so on. Hence we found out which brand was
recalled 1st, which was recalled 2nd and so on for all the 5 brands. After this
we multiplied the number of recalls with the respective weightage
attached to it so as to arrive at the score for each of the brand. In the 2 nd
question also we followed the similar methodology.

For the 3rd question we mentioned 9 taglines (there were multiple taglines
of same brand also) and asked respondents to identify the brands for each
taglines. The number of correct identifications for each brand stood as the
score for each brand. Same was the approach for the 4th question where
the respondents were asked to identify the logos of different brands. One
thing which needs to be pointed out here is that in the 3rd question, as
there were multiple taglines for 3 brands, to arrive at the correct
identifications and thus to arrive at the score for each brand, we took the
average for those brands. Eg. There were 2 taglines for Uncle Chipps, one
of the taglines was identified by 32 respondents out of 40 and the other
was identified by 6 respondents out of 40. So to estimate the number of
correct identifications, we took the average of correct identifications for
each tagline. Hence, the correct identifications for Uncle Chipps stand out
to be 19 out of 40 and hence 19 is the score grabbed by Uncle Chipps’.

The graphical representation of the findings for the knowledge factor is

shown below-

25
As shown in the graph Lay’s tops in the knowledge factor as well. Lay’s
has high awareness among the respondents and also when asked to recall
the brands in the product category, the first top of mind recalls in
maximum cases was Lay’s.

26
LADDERING TECHNIQUE
The Means-End Theory, with its accompanying laddering research
technique, is an integral way to study relationships between consumers
and products. It focuses on consumers’ perceived quality about products.
It specifies that a consumer’s subjective knowledge about product
categories is stored in associative networks or schema, which are
organised as means-end chains.

Traditionally, means-end chain data are gathered through a qualitative

interviewing technique, called laddering. Laddering refers to an in-depth,
one-on-one interviewing technique used to develop an understanding of
how consumers translate the attributes of products into meaningful associ-
ations with respect to self, following Means-End Theory.

The first part of the interview elicits attributes that are important to the
consumer, and the preferences within attributes are established. Then, by
subsequently raising questions about why issues are important to the
consumer, benefits and values are identified. Laddering is a useful method
of eliciting the higher-order benefits and values offered by the brand
beyond immediate product-, user- or usage-related attributes. It brings out
the importance of elicited associations and the importance of elicited
benefits. In other words, attributes convert to consequences which, in
turn, bring about value satisfaction.

“Why is that important to you?” is the standard question used, with the
express goal of determining sets of linkages between the key perceptual
elements across the range of attributes (A), consequences (C), and values
(V). These association networks, or ladders, referred to as perceptual
orientations, represent combinations of elements that serve as the basis
for distinguishing between and among products in a given product class.

It is these higher-order knowledge constructs that can be used to process

information relative to solving ‘problems’ which, in the consumer context,
is represented by choice. Basically, distinctions at the different levels of
abstraction, represented by the A-C-Vs, provide the consumer with more
personally relevant ways in which products are grouped and categorized.
Thus, the detailing and subsequent understanding of these higher level
distinctions provides a perspective on how the product information is pro-
cessed from what could be called a motivational perspective, in that the

27
underlying reasons why an attribute or a consequence is important can be
uncovered.

28
STEPS FOLLOWED
Step 1: Respondents were asked to describe why they buy a product like
Chips. It also detailed the characteristics of Chips that they consume.

Step 2: Once the respondents named a list of characteristics, we asked

questions which emphasize the ‘Why’ behind both concrete and abstract
attributes.

Step 3: The respondents were probed further to find out what they derive
from the characteristics mentioned

Step 4: Based on the preference in the above step, we then asked what
importance those feelings elicit in them, in order to arrive at values.

Step 5: For a few further questions, consequences kept leading to other

consequences

Step 6: Inquiry was continued by asking ‘Why is it important’ or what in

the aspect mentioned appeals to them.

Step 7: This process was continued till values were reached beyond which
one cannot proceed

29
 HIERARCHIAL VALUE MAP

V
Accomplishme Belongi A
nt ng L
U
Independen E
Self- Positivity S
Control ce

C
Provides Limits Feel Within Enjoyment
O
Energy Wastage Fresh Budget
N
S
Quality of Experimentin Saves E
Ingredients g Time Q
U
Entertainin Kills E
Change Socializing N
from g Time
C
Monotony E

Smell of Crunchy Qualit Low Natura A

Chips Sound y Price l T
T
R
Freshne Package Flavou Variet Attractive I
ss d r y design B
U
Light/Readymad T
e Snack E
S

30
This method was considered the most appropriate because it would aid in
revealing consumers’ cognitive structure related to chips purchase and
consumption. The objective of the study is to understand how the
consumers relate a distinctive attribute of Chips to obtaining higher values
in life. Results revealed that values attained by the consumption of Chips
are primarily Positivity, Self-Control, Independence, Accomplishment and
belongingness. The consequences preceding the values were saving time,
socializing, experimentation, limiting the waste of food, feel fresh, change
from the regular monotonous food habits etc.

RESULTS
From the above we can clearly see that Positivity is the most important
value attached to buying Chips as the maximum number of consequences
reach this value. Attributes such as smell of chips, freshness and packaged
food product lead to a change from monotony. This could mean doing the
same activity over a prolonged period and also having the same food over
and over again. Different flavours and designs induce the consumer to
experiment with the product. Being inexpensive, the product also reduces
the cost of trial.
Since it is a light snack, it saves us from the trouble of preparing it and is a
time saver. It is also consumed primarily to kill time when one does not
have much else to do. People also feel that they do not waste chips since
he amount itself is limited as compared to homemade or ready food which
one tends to waste. Spending Rs. 10 to Rs. 20 on a packet of chips also
brought out the consequence of feeling that one is within budget and
increasing the likelihood of experimentation. The value derived from this
was that of self-control, as well as the feeling of independence and having
the power of spending money wisely. One also feels a sense of belonging
or fitting in when one socializes ith a bag of chips in their hands.
Accomplishment is also derived from having a light and less fattening
snack.

31
 NET TAKEAWAY
The above survey was conducted using the BAV as well as the Laddering
method. The BAV was administered to 40 respondents. The findings have
been described below:

Lay’s as a brand was consistently ranked high on a large number of

parameters. Its crispness, variety and availability were found to be quite
strong. Also, it enjoys a significant top-of-mind recall among consumers.

It enjoys a score of 800 on differentiation, as compared to the next best

competitor Kurkure scoring 718. Pringles scored the lowest at 446, though
very close to Uncle Chipps’ scoring 462.

In terms of relevance also, Lay’s has the highest relevance at a response

score of 42. Relevance scores are in the range of 0-50 as compared to
scores of the other three pillars whose scores are in the range of
hundreds. This is because the questions pertaining to relevance were
direct and the number of responses was simply counted. The other
questions were ranking questions where weights were assigned to each
rank to arrive at an appropriate score. Uncle Chipps’ scored the lowest at
3.

32
Knowledge also is revealed to be quite high in the case of Lay’s. It scored
an astounding 468, where Kurkure which is second to it scores almost 150
points lower at 327. Pringles saw the lowest score of 83.

Esteem also saw Lay’s ranking the highest at 231 where Kurkure stood at
a score of 185. Pringles scored the lowest at 71, in spite of it being a
product priced higher than its competitors and positioned as a premium
snack.

The ranks assigned to each factor, namely differentiation, relevance,

knowledge and esteem, were then converted to percentiles to arrive at
brand strength and stature.

When it comes to brand strength (also called brand vitality), Lay’s

scored the highest. Kurkure came second while Bingo was third, Uncle
Chipps’ and Pringles ranked equally on brand strength. This shows that
they are both not differentiated much in spite of dissimilar positioning
platforms. Relevance to the Indian palate, which is characterized by spice
and variety, is where Pringles scores low while most respondents were of
the perception that Uncle Chipps’ is no longer a player in the snack food
market.

When it came to brand stature also, similar results were observed. Lay’s
ranked on top, followed by Kurkure and Bingo. Here, Uncle Chipps’ was
found to have better brand stature than Pringles. Knowledge is quite high
for Lay’s, Kurkure and Bingo, especially because they have been

33
introducing new flavours in regular intervals. Uncle Chipps’ was found to
have better knowledge and esteem as it is an old and trusted Indian
brand. Pringles did not seem to have succeeded in connecting with the
Indian consumer. This could also be due to the fact that P&G’s Pringles has
minimal advertising in the Indian market and does not invest in
promotional activities. The brand also does not tinker with its positioning.

From the graph above, one can clearly see where the five brands stand
as per the Brand Asset Valuator. Lay’s ranks the highest in brand
strength as well as brand stature. Kurkure follows on second position
while Bingo, though a new entrant in the market is third. Uncle Chipps’
and Pringles both would have to work at achieving high brand stature
and brand vitality. Any competitor would have to work hard to reach
the position that Lay’s occupies currently as well as to displace Lay’s
from its secure position. For itself, Lay’s has to maintain its position as
market leader and face off competition from Bingo and Kurkure, both of
whom are aggressive with their promotions.

34
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
• www.fritolays.com

• www.pepsico.com

• www.wikipedia.com

• http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030710/asp/bengal/story_21502
40.asp

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/12864192/Young-rubicam-BAV

• http://www.brandchannel.com/features_profile.asp?pr_id=379

• http://faculty.msb.edu/homak/HomaHelpSite/WebHelp/FritoLay_S
preading_Free_Enterprise_ABC_News_9-9-02.htm

• http://api.ning.com/files/IMR7R9Mz2mj2Ui1qE77hqYCr2-
AxyIEE917Suq-
ldNqKRQ9TGTSDka8rn6DxL5qoK3yYGAMztDqdIO2Sgrk-
OpYBtjcgyFc1/B.EquityModels.htm

• http://cvlearn.com/Documents/Creating%20brand%20equity.pdf

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/14008788/Lays

35
• http://www.rediffusiondyr.com/bav_cap.htm

• http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/FritoLay-
Company-Company-History.html

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay%27s

• http://www.brandassetconsulting.com/site_pages/powergrid

36