INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE GROUP ASSESSMENT MK617: Rural Marketing 2013 Instructor: Venkatesh Umashankar GROUP PROJECT TOPICS

1. Conduct focus group study with rural women to identify the purchase behavior (decision process and determinants) pertaining to i. detergents (both bars and powder forms) ii. cooking oil iii. hair oil iv. packaged/loose tea leaves 2. Through a rural household sample survey, identify the buying roles and buying process for a consumer durable viz. televisions. 3. Investigate the role of religious congregations in rural society and whether they can and should be used as a marketing opportunity. 4. The two wheeler marketers have long targeted rural markets with varying degrees of success, based upon actual market survey including both rural distributors and buyers, identify and comment upon the determinants of effective distribution in such markets. 5. Investigate the concept of leisure in the rural society and based upon literature review and survey results, comment upon the feasibility of rural segment centric travel/tour products/packages. 6. Financial inclusion is the buzz word today for Indian banks. Comment upon the penetration of banks in rural India and their perceived drawbacks through an actual survey of rural bank representatives and customers. 7. Evaluate the awareness about and need for insurance products in rural markets. Comment upon what specific features you would recommend to be integrated in health insurance and life insurance products that would be specifically more relevant to the rural population. 8. Evaluate the media choices (mix) that consumer durable marketers (viz., desert-coolers; washing machines and refrigerators) have used to communicate with rural markets. Based upon consumer survey, identify and prioritize effective media choices for durable marketers. 9. Evaluate the state of primary healthcare (infrastructure and delivery) in rural India. Based upon a survey, explore the nature of such demand; capacity and willingness of rural segments to utilize such services. Is there a model that you can propose for a service provider that can sustainably provide such services earning a just profit? 10. Agricultural input manufacturer-marketers have necessarily been connected to the rural markets for obvious reasons. Are there good practices; learning from that sector which may be useful to marketers of i. FMCG products ii. Consumer durables iii. Telecommunication services

GUIDANCE FOR GROUP PROJECT:

Group formation: Depending on registration in the course, a group of 6 persons will be formed by the instructor and declared in the second class-session. Topics: Will be given in the second class-session. Topics will involve analysis and conclusion drawing based upon both primary and secondary data. Word/Time Limit: Group Report not to exceed 3000 words (excluding appendices). Each group has 15 minutes to present and 5 minutes for question and answers. Word count must be provided on the cover page. Format: MS-Powerpoint based presentation. Use the IMI template for all presentations. The cover page must have the names of the group members along with their student id no. o Each report must be augmented by a review of literature that critiques the inferences drawn and provides a perspective to our recommendations. Guidance: Groups may seek guidance regarding their assignment from the instructor outside the class room. Submission: You must submit the Report and PPT files, both in soft and hard copy. Both the versions need to be submitted to the Program Office within the deadline stipulated. Deadline: Group presentations are scheduled in the last session of the term, however, the submission of the Group Report and PPT files need to be made to the Program Office, by 5.00 P.M., ONE DAY BEFORE the Presentation Day. o DELAYED SUBMISSION: The Project Report and the PPT files must be submitted on or before the date indicated above. Any delay in submission will attract penalties as indicated below If submitted within 48 hours after the stipulated deadline, you will at best earn the minimum pass mark in this component (weight 20 percent) Submissions beyond 48 hours of the deadline will be considered as non-submissions and will be awarded an F grade Originality: This must be your work with references provided (in-text and end-of-text) as per the Harvard Referencing guidelines. Plagiarism in any form will not be accepted and penalized, up to earning an F grade in the component or in the overall course. Details on various forms of plagiarism are provided in the section Using unfair means in assessments. Also see at the end of this document, a note on academic writing, which highlights some of the concerns that we should be alive to and take care to provide for them appropriately.

MARKING CRITERIA FOR GROUP ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSIONS

An outstanding piece of work which is publishable or virtually publishable in its own right where appropriate. The work should provide: critical analysis of the whole range of relevant literature; critical discussion of the nature and sources of evidence; critical reflections of the choice of methodology; sound analysis; presentations of conclusions where appropriate. The work at this level should be exhibit a high degree of originality and pertinence. Full scholarly apparatus (including referencing) should be well presented and well written. An excellent piece of work, which contains a high degree of insight, some originality and pertinence. The level of critical analysis and reflections as applied to the literature, evidence and analysis should be high where appropriate. Appropriate and effective scholarly apparatus should be used and the piece should be well presented and well written. The standard may show that the candidate has clear potential for doctoral work. 85-100% A+, A 90 = A+ 85-89 = A 70-84% A-, B+ 80-84 = A70-79 = B+ A good or very good piece of work, which is well planned, well structured and pertinent. There should be critical reviews of relevant literature and critical analysis of evidence where appropriate. The work should go beyond taught material by showing evidence of wide reading and/or personal insight. There should (particularly in dissertations) be some attempt at original contribution, though this may be more limited than in the case above, or it may contain minor flaws. Scholarly apparatus should be used effectively and the work should be well presented and well written. An adequate and substantially correct but unimaginative response to the question, drawing heavily on taught material. There should be some evidence of either wide reading, critical insight or originality, but this will be limited or somewhat flawed. Scholarly apparatus may be used imperfectly and the quality of presentation may be wanting. 60-69% B, B65-69 = B 60-64 = B50-59% C+, C 55-59 = C+ 50-54 = CA partial and incomplete treatment of the topic, which may furthermore have flaws in the argument. A mark in this range may also be awarded where there is an absence of any critical analysis. There should be at least an attempt to handle the scholarly apparatus. Overall, the work would not be worthy of a pass at masters. 40-49% C-, D 45-49 = C40-49 = D The work contains some material of relevance to some part of the question, but is seriously flawed or thin in content. There is insufficient understanding of the basics to allow any form of critical analysis. Little work of any relevance to the question/topic; a missed question/objective; analysis which is wrong and demonstrates fundamental lack of understanding. 30-39% F 0-29% F

USING UNFAIR MEANS IN ASSESSMENTS:

All assessments are intended to determine your individual skills, abilities, understanding and knowledge. Cheating is defined as obtaining an unfair academic advantage and any of you found using any form of cheating, attempting to cheat or assisting someone else to cheat may be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the IMIs Disciplinary Procedure (Please see: Page 22 of the Handbook of Information for Students). The Institute takes this issue very seriously and you may be awarded an overall F in the course if you are found cheating in assessments. If you are having difficulty with your work it is important to seek help from your tutor rather than be tempted to use unfair means to gain marks. Do not risk your grades and all the work you have done. There are various forms of cheating and all of them are strictly forbidden. These are: Submitting other people's work as your own - either with or without their knowledge. This includes copying in examinations; using notes or unauthorized materials in examinations Impersonation - taking an assessment on behalf of or pretending to be another student, or allowing another person to take an assessment on your behalf or pretend to be you Plagiarism - taking or using another person's thoughts, writings or inventions as your own. To avoid plagiarism you must make sure that quotations, from whatever source, are clearly identified and attributed at the point where they occur in the text of your work by using one of the standard conventions for referencing. It is not enough just to list sources in a bibliography at the end of your essay or dissertation if you do not acknowledge the actual quotations in the text. Neither is it acceptable to change some of the words or the order of sentences if, by failing to acknowledge the source properly, you give the impression that it is your own work Collusion - except where written instructions specify that work for assessment may be produced jointly and submitted as the work of more than one student, you must not collude with others to produce a piece of work jointly, copy or share another student's work or lend your work to another student in the reasonable knowledge that some or all of it will be copied Duplication - submitting work for assessment that is the same as, or broadly similar to, work submitted earlier for academic credit, without acknowledgement of the previous submission Falsification - the invention of data, its alteration, copying from any other source, or otherwise obtaining it by unfair means, or inventing quotations and/or references.

A NOTE ON ACADEMIC WRITING:

IMIs motto is Shaping Global Leaders for Tomorrow. Therefore it is imperative for all of us to be very particular about following globally accepted standards and norms in all facets of our academic pursuits, be it conducting and presenting research; writing reports, theses, essays, monographs etc. One of the key criteria for academic writing to be of value is to maintain its originality. And, one of the cornerstones of maintaining originality is to be absolutely exact and accurate while referencing our work for substantiation and validation. Any academic work of value will have inferences and conclusions supported by extant literature and authentic sources of data and information. For instance, it is not acceptable to this instructor (and many like him) if you quote any wiki sites, for the simple reason that they are all user generated source and not-authenticated. We must be wary of the quality of source that we are using to base our inferences and conclusions.

Secondly, when we use appropriate sources of data and/or inferences, we must follow the accepted conventions of referencing these sources both in-text as well as end-of-the-text. For the purposes of the course at hand, I want you to use the HARVARD System of Referencing, while compiling and presenting your report or presentation. The Harvard System of Referencing is easy to follow and in my opinion very user/reader friendly too. A comprehensive guide on how to create references using this system is available at: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm I recommend that all of you have a look at this website and learn how to reference properly. There are actually other sites which can generate (Harvard style) references if you supply them with the bits of information describing the source! But to my mind its rather tedious and arguably complicates the whole issue needlessly. Un-referenced quotes/usage of material are considered as examples of plagiarism and the treatment is usually to discard such work or, in our case- penalize the same with varying degrees of severity.