EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Title:

Comparative study of the distribution network of Pepsi via-a-vis &other in Guwahati

and Tezpur.

1.Objective

Primary objective

1. To make a comparative study of the distribution of Pepsi soft drinks via-a-vis Coco-
cola and other like Litchi, Frooti etc Guwahati and Tezpur.

2. To ascertain the Promptness in deliver of Pepsi soft drinks in Guwahati and

Tezpur.

3. To make a comparative analysis of satisfaction level or retailers via-a-vis different

soft drinks in Guwahati and Tezpur.

Secondary objective

1. To find out the trade promotional measure undertaken by different soft drink
companies.
2. To make a comparative study of the trade of the trade credit offered by soft
drink companies.
3. To dertimine the comparative sale of different soft drink brand in Guwahati
and Tezpur.

2. Methodology

Research Design:

The research was conducted mainly to make a comparative study of the

distribution network of Pepsi soft drinks via-a-vis Coco-cola and other in Guwahati
and Tezpur. The research also aim at measuring the comparative market share, trade
promotional measure, trade credit offers and promptness in delivery of soft drinks
companies in Guwahati and Tezpur. So the research is both exploratory and
descriptive in nature.
Research plan:

Type of research: Survey method of research was selection to collect the primary
data. This was objective through interview of retailers in Guwahati and Tezpur. By
taking sample

Data sources:

(A) Primary data: Primary Data was obtained through interview of the retailers of
soft drink in Guwahati and Tezpur. By sampling survey.
(B) Secondary data: secondary data was obtained from the following ;
i) Company website (www.pepsico.com), as well as that of competitor’s
websites (www.cocacolaindia.com) etc.
ii) Company literature, brochures and leaflets etc.
iii) From distribution.

Survey plan:

Area to be covered: Guwahati and Tezpur.

Total retailers surveyed: the whole Guwahati City’s distribution of Pepsi soft drink is
carried out by 3 different distribution channels. Under each distribution sample
taken were 66, 38 &151 respectively. On the other hand only one distribution in
there in Tezpur and 118 samples were taken under the same. Stratified random
sampling was done to select samples.

Research instruments:

The main research instrument used for this study was personally administered
Scheduled Interview.
3.Major Findings

The major findings of the study are listed below:

1. A dismal picture that has come to light is the stock-out problem of Pepsi soft drinks
due lack of promptness in delivery. Cases of stock out has lead to retailers switching
over to competitor’s brands especially in Zone I and Zone II of Guwahati. A few such
incidents have also occurred in Tezpur and in Zone III of Guwahati.
2. The trend of stock–out in all the four places in the last three years has remained the
same. While the number of retailers facing stock-out has been decreasing, the
number of time it has occurred has been increasing; Zone III of Guwahati has shown
a stable a stable trend in this respect over the last two year.
3. Coca-cola has outsmarted Pepsi and all other companies in their promptness in
delivery. Again in Zone III of Guwahati the distribution channel in satisfactory in
delivering the product to the retailers. In zone II of Guwahati, retailers have rated
Pepsi very dismally in terms of promptness in delivery.
4. Retailers have rated Coca-cola highly in terms of satisfaction arising out distribution
of the drinks. The percentage of satisfied of Pepsi is very less in comparative to that
of Coca-cola. Litchi shows a good number of satisfied retailers in all the places. In
case of indifferent retailers regarding satisfaction level, the percentage of
respondents are more in case of Pepsi and Frooti, followed by other 1 and Litchi
respectively. Pepsi has been given rating 0 more in comparison to its comparative
the rating for Pepsi worst in Zone I and Zone II of Guwahati.

4.Recommendations
1. North East Pure drinks LTD (NEPDPL) should give more effort to make prompt and
effective delivery of its product to the retailer.

2. NEPD marketing PTV LTD. Which is owned by NEPDPL can also think of operating in
Zone I and Zone II of Guwahati city. It will make the distribution channel much effective,
efficient and professional.

3. Pepsi (or for that matter NEPDPL) need to seriously think over the shrinking market
due much aggressive campaign of Coca-cola in providing visi-coolers to thr retailers.

4. A large portion of the market especially in all and medium level of locality is captured
by Litchi whole lower Pricing gives itself a comparative advantage. Pepsi needs to work
on its pricing strategy so as to reap this spectrum of lower cost soft drink.
 INTRODUCTION
PepsiCo
Pepsi-Cola, commonly called Pepsi, is a soft driank produced and manufactured by
PepsiCo. Pharmacist Caleb Bradham made this drink in New Bern, North Carolina in
the United States from the first time in 1890s. As Pepsi was initially intended to cure
stomach pains, it is believed that Bradham coined the name Pepsi from either the
condition dyspepsia (stomach ache or indigestion) or the possible one-time used was
made of carbonated water, sugar, vanilla, rare oils and kola nuts. The brand was
trademarked on June 16, 1903.

PepsiCo is a world leader in convenient foods and beverage, with 2006 revenues of
more than $35billion and 188,000 employees. The company consists of Frito-lay
North America, PepsiCo Beverages North America, PepsiCo international and Quaker
foods North America. Most of the PepsiCo brands available in nearly 200 countries
and territories and generate sales at retail level of about $92 billion.

Although some of PepsiCo’s brand Name are more than 100-year-old, but the
corporation is relatively young. PepsiCo was founded in 1965 through the merger of
Pepsi-Cola and Frito-lay. Tropicana was acquired in 1998 and PepsiCo merged with
the Quaker Oats Company, included Gatorade, in 2001.

PepsiCo offers product choices to meet a broad variety of needs and preference—from
fun-for-you items to product choices that contribute to healthier lifestyle.

PepsiCo’s mission is “to be the world’s premier consumer Products Company focused
on convenient food and beverage. We seek to produce healthy financial rewards to
investors as we provide opportunities for growth and enrichment to our employee, our
business partner and the communities in which we operate. And in everything we do,
we strive for honesty, fairness and integrity.”

PepsiCo has been a pioneer in the development of a Direct Store Delivery (DSD)
model. The concept of DSD centres on eliminating the warehousing step in the
process of getting high-turnover, high-volume perishable goods such as soft drink and
snacks to market; instead, the suppliers take their production directly to the store.

PepsiCo world Headquarters is located in purchase, New York, approximately

45minutes from New York City.
 North East Pure Drinks (NEPD) Pvt Ltd
Pepsi was launched in North East on 30th August1998 in Guwahati. It functions under
the name North East Pure Drinks Private Limited (NEPDPL) basically Pepsi Cola
operates under two operations they are COBO and FOBO

COBO: Company Owned Bottling Operations

FOBO: Franchise Owned Bottling Operations

North East Pepsi market is operated by FOBO, NEPDPL is a franchise of this region.
The entire NE, NEPDPL has one production plant, which is in Rain, in the outskirts of
Guwahati.

Guwahati, the gate way to NE india is the main marketing where maximum
consumption of Pepsi is seen. There is a significant demand of Pepsi soft driank and
45%os the sale of NEPDPL come for Guwahati market only. Rani’s bottling plant not
caters to the entire northeast but also to same parts of Bhutan.

The administrative office for marketing of the Pepsi beverage for the entire ne is
located at Bhuvan Road Uzaanbazar, Guwahati, the Pepsi Cola beverages reaches the
end consumers by direct distribution aswell as through distribution. At percent two
private distribution of Pepsi in Guwahati are there. They are subhash & Co. And
Mahamaya Enterprises based in Maligaon and Sarabbhai respectively. The major
destributionoperation of Pepsi in Guwahati is carried out by the NEPD Marketing Pvt
Ltd situated at Zoo Road (near NEEPCO), and is owned by NEPDPL itself .on the
other hand there is only one distribution of Pepsi in Tezpur . it is the east Assam
Beveragw Pvt Ltd location in Dhanua Nagar, Tezpur.

Thwe main beverage that NEPDPL produces and market are Pepsi, Mirinda,
7up,Mountain Dew and Slice.

One of the main problem areas for NEPDPL has been the shrinking, market share of
PepsiCo beverage over the last few years in North-Eastern part of India. As reflected
in different surveys of NEPDPL regarding its share in the soft drink market, Pepsi
beverage stands at less than 30% while that while that of its main competitor Coca-
cola is more than 60%. The company is striving towards increasing its marketing
share .NEPDPL is concerned about enhancing its distribution channel so asto deliver
the goods to end users in an effective and efficient manner.
 CHAPTER II

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

 Primary objectives
 Secondary objectives
 Scope of the study
 Limitations of the study
 II. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
Primary objective:
1) To make a comparative study of the destibution of Pepsi soft drinks vis-a-vis
Coca-cola and other like Litchi, Frooti etc In Guwahati and Tezpur.
2) To ascertain the promptness in delivery of Pepsi soft drinks in Guwahati and
Tezpur.
3) To make a comparative analysis of satisfaction level of retailers vis-avis
different soft drink in Guwahati and Tezpur.

Secondary objective :

1) To find out the trade promotional measures undertaken by different soft drink
companies
2) To make a comparative study of the trade credit offered by soft drink
companies.
3) To determine the comparative sale of different soft drink brands in Guwahati
and Tezpur.

Scope of the study:

The main scope of the study within Guwahati and Tezpur. Are set forth below –

The major scope of the this project is to make a comparative study of the
distribution network of Pepsi soft drinks vis-a-vis Coca-cola and others in Guwahati
and Tezpur. Only.

1) The scope of the study is to find out the destribution effectiveness of Pepsi soft
driank in comparison to Coca-cola and others.
2) Another scope of the study is to find out the comparative trade credit, trade
promotional measures and sales of soft drinks.
Limitation of the study:

The main limitation of the study are discussed as follows-

1) Getting unbiased responses for retailers was very difficult since sometime the
mistook the surveyor as company official.
2) Since the survey was conducted among retailers, closed shops created a
problem in some areas during the afternoon.
3) More often respondents (retailers) were found busy with customers which
made getting their responses tough.
4) Unpredictable weather during the summer made survey difficult.
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 Research Design
 Sources of Data
 Scaling Techniques
 Survey plan
 III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design:
The research was conducted mainly to make a comparative study of the
distribution network of Pepsi soft drinks vis-a-vis Coca-cola and other in
Guwahati and Tezpur. The research also aims at measuring the comparative
market share, trade promotion measures, trade credit offer and promptness in
delivery of soft drinks companies in Guwahati and Tezpur. So the research is
both exploratory and descriptive in nature.

B. Sources of Data:
(i) Primary data: Primary data was obtained through interview of the
retailers of soft drink in Guwahati and Tezpur. By sample survey.
(ii) Secondary data: Secondary data was obtained from the following:
i) Company website (www.pepsico.com), as well as that of
competitor’s websites (www.cocacolaindia.com) etc.
ii) Company literature, brochures and leaflets etc.
iii) From distributors.
C. Scaling Techniques:

Nominal and Interval scale.

D. Survey Plan:
i. Area to be covered: Guwahati and Tezpur.
ii. Sample Size: the whole Guwahati city’s distribution of Pepsi soft drinks
is carried out by 3 different distribution channels. Under each
distribution sample taken were 66, 38 and 151 respectively. On the other
hand only one distribution is therein Tezpur and 118 samples were taken
the same.
iii. Sampling Procedure: probabilistic sampling procedure was selected
for survey. The whole population was divided into strata of distributors.
Further under each distributor, respondent were stratified into beats.
Then stratified random sampling was done to select the samples.
iv. Research instruments: The main research instrument used for this was
personally Administered Scheduled Interview.
Schedule Design: The schedule has been prepared with prior consultation of the
academic as well as organisation guide. The questions were all close ended. The
schedule was mainly aimed to find out the distribution effectiveness of Pepsi soft
drinks compared with the other soft drinks from retailers in Guwahati and Tezpur.

There was only one schedule which was prepared after incorporating the required
change after the pilot survey. The schedule was prepared to measure to determine the
market position and acceptance of soft drinks as compared with that of competing
brand, to ascertain the methods of promotional efforts at the point of scale, credit
offers in Guwahati and Tezpur.

The schedule consisted of- 9questions. Of these 9 close ended questions, same had
supplementary questions of which 11 were in nominal scale which the rest were
in interval scale

In the schedule rating order questions have been introduced to rate soft drink
companies/brands in scale of 0 (lowest/worst) to 4 (highest/best).

The nature of the questions is discussed as follows:

 The first question is set to rate different soft drink companies/brands by

retailers in respect of PoP displays, glow signs, hoardings, mobile hangers
stands etc.
 The next question was to ascertain whether retailers receive trade promotional
measures for soft drink companies and their rating of different brands in respect
of such offers. The next question was to make retailer rate different brand in
case they feel that such offers are not released to them by distributors.
 Again there is one question to determine if the supplies of Pepsi soft drinks
prompt. Is there any cases of stock-out the subsequent rating of companies in
terms promptness in delivery
 In addition these are one question to rate different soft drink brands in terms of
trade credit offered by them.
 Another vital question was to make retailers rate companies in respect of
satisfaction.
 The last question was regarding rating of different brands in terms of their
sales.
Pilot Survey:

After preparation of the draft schedule as per guidance of the organizational and
academic guide a pilot survey was conducted involving about 5 respondents of
retailers in Guwahati and Tezpur each. This was done to incorporate any changes that
may appear essential before preparing the final schedule.

The classification of retailers:

All the 373 retailers were classified in three categories- Busy, Medium and Low as per
the type of location they were situated.

Type of Brands surveyed:

Different type of soft drink brands that were surveyed during this study are mentioned
below:

Pepsi: Pepsi, Mirinda, 7up, Mountain Dew, Slice

Coca-cola: Coca-cola, Thums-up, Sprite, Limca, Fanta, Mazaa.

Litchi

Frooti

Other1: Appy Fizz

Other2: Annapurna Fundaaz

 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS
 TEZPUR
 GUWAHATI, ZONE I
 GUWAHATI, ZONE II
 GUWAHATI, ZONE III
 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT
ZONES
 IV. ANALYSIS
The distribution of Pepsi beverages in Tezpur is carried out by Dhanua nagar based
East Assam Beverages Pvt Limited. For the purpose of survey, 18 retailers were
selected by random sampling.

Retailers were classified as Busy, Medium and Lowas per the type of location they
were situated.

Medium
Low
Busy

Fig.2.Retailers location

Of the total 118 retailers surveyed, 36 were in busy location while 64 and 18 were in
medium and low locality respectively.

Now let us look how many retailers have responded positively towards facilities
offered by in term of PoP displays, glow sign and hoardings etc.

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

39.8% 75.9% 00.00% 2.1% 00.00% 00.00%

It can be easily interpreted that such facilities offered by Coca-cola are far more
(around twice more) than what Pepsi offer. On the other hand such facilities offered
by other companies/brands are negligible.

Another look at the facilities like mobile hangers/stands offered by companies reveal
the following pattern of positive response.

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

26.4% 47.3% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00%
Again here also, Coca-cola scores more than Pepsi while that of other are nil.

Let us now see whether retailers receive trade promotional measures from companies.
 Sales

Yes
No

Fig.3. Retailers responses weather trade promotional measures are received by them

To this particular query 77.1% of retailers responded positively. Further it was found
that positive responses for different brand of companies are like Pepsi- 91.2%,
Mirinda-96.7%, 7up- 95.6%, Mountain Dew- 84.6%, Slice-84.6%, Coca-cola-89.7%,
Thums-up-87.4%, Sprite- 96.6%, Limca-81.5%, Fanta-96.6%, Mazaa- 89.5%, Litchi-
85.1%, Frooti-69.7%, Other1- 72,7%, Other2-25%. If we plot a bar diagram showing
retailers’ responses towards trade promotional measures of various brands in a rating
scale of 0(lowest) to 4 (highest) then the following is seen.
6

3 4
3
2
2 1
0
1

Fig.4.Retailers respond (0-least to 4- highest) towards trade promotional measures of

brands

When retailer were askedweather they feel trade promaotion measure are not released
to them by destribution, they responded in the following manner.
 Sales

NO
Yes

Fig.5.Responses weather TPMs are not released by distributors.

To this Query 30.55 of retailer responded positively. Firther it was found that positive
responses for different brands of companies are like Pepsi- 97.2%, Mirinda- 94.4%,
7up- 94.4%, Mountain Dew- 97.2%, Slice- 93.3%, Coca-cola-94.1%, Thums-up-
94.1% Sprite- 94.1%, Limca- 91.2%, Fanta- 94.1%, Mazaa- 94.1%, Litchi- 87.9%,
Frooti- 92.9%, Other1- 75%, Other2- 00.00%.

To another vital question regarding the promptness of delivery of Pepsi Beverage

16.1% of respondent replied that it was not prompt which resulted in stock-outs of
Pepsi.when asked how many time stock out cases has occurred in the year before last
year, the responseswerer like this : once-3.4%, 2-3 times- 9.3%, 4-6 times- 0.8%,7-8
times 0.8% tn the last year, responses were like this : once- 1.7%,2-3 times-5.1%,4-6
times-7.6%,7-8 times- 1.7%.inthis year: Once- 0.0%. 2-3 times- 3.4%, 4-6 times-
8.5%, 7-8 times- 2.5%, more than 9 times- 1.7%.

If we see the trend of stock- outs in the last three years, the following pattern can be seen:
10

6
Year before last year
5
Last year
4 This year

0
Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-8 times more than 9 timeas

Fig.6.Stock- out trend of Pepsi in the last three years

The stock- out situation over the last three years has been deteriorating in terms of
number of times such incident has occurred.
The frequency of delivery of Pepsi to the retailers is as follows:
70

60

50

40

Series 1
30

20

10

0
Daily 2-4 days 5-7 days 8-10 days More than 10 days

Fig.7. Frequency of delivery of Pepsi

44.9% of the respondents said that there is daily delivery of Pepsi while 50.8% said it
to be 2-4 days and the rest 4.3% replied it to be 5-7 days.

When retailers were asked to rate different soft drink companies in order of their
promptness in delivery, the following was found (as a percentage):

Pepsi Coco-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
1 1.7 0.0 0.8 6.8 00 0.0
2 44.9 21.2 28.0 50.0 3.4 0.0
3 35.6 26.3 42.4 11.0 6.8 0.8
4 16.9 46.6 22.0 12.7 1.7 1.7

In case of promptness in delivery of products, Coco-cola has got highest percentage of

4 rating, followed by Litchi and Pepsi. It terms 3rating, Litchi has got highest
percentage followed by Pepsi and Coco-cola, in term 2 rating also, Pepsi is second
placed behind Frooti.

If retailers’ responses are put in a bar graph the following can be obtained:
 60

50

40
0
1
30 2
3
4
20

10

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

Fig.8.Retailers’ ratings (0-worstto 4-best) as per promptness in delivery of soft drinks

On being asked whether soft drink companies offer trade credit to the retailers, 55.1%
of the respondent’s replied positively. While 98.3% of the respondents (who receive
trade credit) replied that Pepsi offered them the same, it was 82.3% in case of Coca-
cola. 91.9% in Litchi, 82% in Frooti, 98.3% in Other1 and 99% in Other2. Plotting a
graph showing respondents’ ratings regarding credit offers in different brands, the
following can be obtained.
30

25

20

0
15
1
2
10 3
4

Fig.9.Retailers’ rating(0-worst to 4-best) regarding credit offered in different brands

When asked by what percentage their sale would have increased had Pepsi offered
credit to those retailers who did not receive trade credit, their reply as a percentage of
total respondents are as follows:

Less than 5% 5-10% 10-20% 20-50% More than 50%

12.7 7.6 11.9 10.2 3.4
The retailers were asked to rate different companies in order of satisfaction level. The
following findings were revealed (expressed as a percentage of total respondents):

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

0 2.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 6.8 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.8 0.0
2 46.6 27.1 398 55.9 3.8 0.8
3 32.2 40.7 39.0 153 6.8 0.8
4 11.9 203 15.3 5.1 1.7 1.7

The rating was done on the scale of: 0- Not satisfied at all, 1- Not satisfied, 2-
indifferent, 3- satisfied, 4- Very much satisfied.

Let us now see a graph depicting the overall satisfaction level of customers towards
different soft drink companies.

70

60

50

40 0
1
2
30 3
4
20

10

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

Fig.10. Retailers’ rating (0-lowest to 4-highest) of soft drink companies as per

satisfaction level
The last question was regarding rating of brands in order of their sales, Represented in
the following table as a percentage of total respondents:

0 1 2 3 4
Pepsi 0.0 14..4 50.0 10.2 25.4
Mirinda 0.0 0.0 9.3 21.2 69.5
7up 0.0 7.6 48.3 22.9 21.2
M Dew 0.8 44.9 38.1 11.9 4.2
Slice 2.5 44.1 47.5 1.7 0.8
Coca-cola 0.0 5.1 31.4 19.5 39.0
Thums-up 1.7 32.2 48.3 5.1 6.8
Sprite 00 0.0 1.7 5.9 87.3
Limca 22.9 47.5 22.0 1.7 0.0
Fanta 0.0 0.0 5.1 12.7 76.3
Mazaa 0.0 3.4 424 424 5.1
Litchi 0.0 0.8 127 203 60.2
Frooti 0.0 0.0 43.2 22.9 15.3
Other1 0.0 0.8 5.1 5.1 17
Other2 0.0 0.0 1.7 08 0.8

If we plot a graph of the ratings provided by the respondent then the following can be
obtained:

120

100

80

0
60
1
2
40 3
4

20

Fig.11. Retailers’ ratings (0- worst to 4-best) of soft drink as per their sales
B.Guwahati

Zone I

The distribution of Pepsi beverages in Zone I of Guwahati is carried out by Maligaon

based Subhash & Co. Its area spans between Bharalumukh to Lankeswar. For the
purpose of survey, 66 retailers were selected by random sampling.

Retailers were classified as busy , medium and low as per the type of location they
were situated.

Busy
Medium
Low

Fig.12.Retailers location

Of the total 66 retailers surveyed, 16 were in busy location while 35 an 15 were in

medium an low locality respectively.

Now let us look how many retailer have responded positively towards facilities
offered by companies in term of PoP displays, Glow signs Hoarding etc.

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

36.4% 75.8% 00.00% 36.4% 87.9%

It can be easily interpreted that such facility offered by Coca-cola and other1 are far
more (more than 100%) that what Pepsi offers. On the other hand such facilities
offered by Frooti are same with that of Pepsi. Litchi doesn’t offer any such facilities.

Another look at the facilities like Mobile hangers/ stands offered by companies reveal
the following pattern of positive response.

Pepsi Coco- cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

17.7% 30.3% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00%

Again here also, Coca-cola scores more than Pepsi while that of other are nil.
Let us now see weather receive retailer trade promotional measures from companies

Sales

Yes
No

Fig.13. Retailers responses weather trade promotional measures are received by them

To this particular query 51.5% of retailer responded positively. Further it was found
that positive responses for different brands of companies are like Pepsi- 92.4%,
Mirinda- 84.8% , 7up- 89.4%, Mountain Dew- 0.0%, Slice- 98.5%, Coca-Cola-
72.7%, Thums-up-71.2%, Sprite- 69.7%, Limca- 93.9%, Fanta- 71.2%, Mazaa-
72.7%, Litchi- 98.5%, Frooti- 78.8%, Other1 0.0% While Other2 was not found to on
sale.

If we plot a bar diagram showing retailers’ responses towards trade promotional

measures of various brands in a rating scale of 0(lowest) to 4(highest) then the
following is seen.
30

25

20

15 0
1
2
10 4

Fig.14. Retailers responses (0-least to 4-highest) towards trade promotional measures

of brands
When retailers were asked whether they feel trade promotional measures are not
released to them by distributions, they responded in the following manner.

Yes
No

Fig.15. Responses weather TPMs are not released by distributors.

To this query 18.2%of retailer responded positively. Further it was found that positive
responses for different brands of companies are like Pepsi-100%, Mirinda- 100%,
7up- 100%, Mountain Dew 100% Slice- 100%, Coca-cola- 100% Thums-up- 100%,
sprite- 100%, Limca-100%, Fanta- 100%, Mazaa- 100%, Litchi- 96.5%, Frooti-
98.5%, Other1- 98.5%

To another vital question regarding the promptness of delivery of Pepsi, 22.7% of

respondents replied that it was not prompt which resulted in stock-out of Pepsi. When
asked how many times stock out cases occurred in the year before last year, the
responses were like this: once- 3.0%. 2-3times-12.1%, 4-6 times- 6.1%, 7-8 times-
0.0%, More than 9 times- 1.5%. In the last year, responses were like this: Once- 0.0%,
2-3 times- 6.1%, 4-6 times- 15.2% 7-8 times- 0.0%, More than 9 times- 1.5%. In this
year: Once- 0.0%, 2-3 times- 3.0%, 4-6 times- 15.2%, 7-8 times- 3.0%, More than 9
times- 1.5% . If we see the trend of stock-outs in the last years, the following pattern
can be seen:
16

14

12

10

Year before last year

8
Last year
This year
6

0
Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-8 times More than 9time

Fig.16. Stock-out tread of Pepsi in the last three years

Stock out situation is getting dismal in terms of number of occurrence, however in
terms of number of respondents, the situation is improving.

The frequency of delivery of Pepsi to retailers is as follows:

Series 1
35

30

25

20 Series 1

15

10

0
Daily 2-4 dayes 5-4 days 8-10 dayes More than 10 days

Fig.17. Frequency of delivery of Pepsi

39.4%the respondents said that three is daily delivery of Pepsi while 45.5% said it to
be 2-4 days, 13.6% 5-7 days and the rest 1.5%replied it to be 8-10 days.

When retailers were asked to rate different soft drink companies in order of their
promptness in delivery, the following was found (as a percentage)

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 167 1.5 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
2 63.6 7.6 39.4 54.5 10.6 0.0
3 4.5 53.0 39.4 10.6 19.7 0.0
4 4.5 37.9 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0

In case of promptness in delivery of products, Coca-cola has got highest percentage of

4 rating, following by Pepsi. Pepsi is leading others only rating 2 provided by the
respondents.

If retailer’ responses are put in a bar graph, the following can be obtained
 45

40

35

30
0
25 1
2
20 3
4
15

10

0
Pepsi Coca-co;a Litchi Frooti Other1

Fig.18. Retailers; ratings (0-worst to 4-best)as per promptness in delivery of soft

drinks

On being asked whether soft drank companies offer trade credit to retailers, 22.7% of
the respondents replied positively. While 98.5% of the respondents (who receive trade
credit) replied that Pepsi offers them the same, it was 87.9% in case of Coca-cola,
98.5% in Litchi, 90.0% in Frooti and 93.9% in Other1. Plotting a graph showing
respondents; ratings regarding credit offers in different brands, the following can be
obtained.

10
9
8
7
6
0
5
1
4 2
3
3 4
2
1
0

Fig.19. Retailers’ rating (0-worst to 4-best) regarding credit offered in different brands
When asked by what percentage their scale would have increased had Pepsi offered
credit to those retailers who did not received trade credit, their reply as a percentage of
total respondents are as follows:

Less than 5% 5-10% 10-20% 20-50% More than 50%

36.4 30.3 7.6 4.5 0.0

The retailers were asked to rate different companies in order of satisfaction level. The
following findings were revealed (expressed as a percentage of total respondents):

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

0 6.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 28.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 51.3 28.8 16.7 66.7 16.7 0.0
3 10.6 60.6 62.1 3.0 13.6 0.0
4 3.0 7.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

The rating was done on the sale of: 0-not satisfied, 2-indifferent, 3- satisfied, 4- very
much satisfied, 4- Very much satisfied.

Let us now see a graph depicting the overall satisfaction level of customers towards
different soft drink companies.

45

40

35

30
0
25 1
2
20 3
4
15

10

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1

Fig.20. Retailers rating (0-lowest to 4-highest) of soft drink companies as per

satisfaction level
The last question was regarding rating of brands in order of their sales. Represented in
the following table as a percentage of total respondents:

0 1 2 3 4
Pepsi 0.0 12.1 57.6 18.2 12.1
Mirinda 00 0.0 3.0 36.4 60.6
7up 1.5 4.5 36.4 48.5 9.1
M Due 3.0 59.1 34.8 1.5 1.5
Slice 28.8 62.1 7.6 0.0 1.5
Coca-Cola 0.0 0.0 43.9 28.8 27.3
Thums-up 1.5 0.0 15.2 50.0 33.3
Sprite 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 87.9
Limca 24.2 68.2 7.6 0.0 0.0
Fanta 0.0 0.0 6.1 48.5 455
Mazaa 1.5 1.5 71.2 24.2 15
Litchi 0.0 0.0 1.5 25.8 53.0
Frooti 0.0 0.0 27.2 28.8 13.6
Other1 0.0 0.0 10.6 19.7 0.0
Other2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

If we plot a graph of the ratings provided by the respondents then the following can be
obtained:

60

50

40

0
30 1
2
20 3
4

10

Fig.21. Retailers rating (0-worst to 4-best) of soft drinks as per their sales
Zone II

The distribution of Pepsi beverage in Zone II of guwahati is carried out by Sarabbhati

Based Mahamaya Enterprises. Its area spans between Paltan Bazar to Lokhar
Charaiali. For the purpose of survey, 38 retailers were selection by random sampling.

Retailer was classified as busy, medium and low as per the type of location they were
situated.

Busy
Mediun
Low

Fig.22.Retailers Location

Of the total 38 retailer surveyed 18 were in busy location while 15 and 5 were in
medium and low location respectively.

Now let us look how many retailers have responded positively towards facilities
offered by companies in term of Pop displays, Glow signs and Hoardings etc.

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

47.4% 73.7% 00.00% 10.5% 65.8%

It can be easily interpreted that such facilities offered by Coca-cola and Other1 are far
more than what Pepsi offers. On that other hand Pepsi comes third in terms of such
Offers Litchi doesn’t offer any such facilities.

Another look at the facilities like hangers/ stands Offered by companies reveal the
following pattern of positives response.

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

18.4% 47.4% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00%
Again here also, Coca-cola scores more than Pepsi while that of others are nil
Let us now see weather receive trade promotional measures from companies.

Yes
No

Fig.23.Retailer responses weather trade promotional measures are received by them

To this particular query 36.8% of retailers responded positively. Further it was found
that positive responses for different brands of companies are like Pepsi- 78.4%,
Mirinda- 65.8%, 7up- 86-8% Mountain Dew- 89.5%, Slice-97.4%, Coca-cola-65.8%,
thums-up-65.8%, Sprite- 65.8%, Limca- 89.5%, Fanta- 65.8%, Mazaa- 72.7%, Litchi-
91.5%, Frooti- 68.8%, Other1- 95.7% while Other2 was not found to sale.

If we plot a bar diagram showing retailers; responses towards trade promotional

measures of various brands in rating scale of 0(lowest) to 4(highest), then tne
following is seen
14

12

10

8
0
1
6 2
3
4 4

Fig.24. Retailers responses (0-least to 4- highest) towards trade promotional measures

of brands
When retailers were asked whether they feel trade promotional measures are not
released to them by distributors, they responded in the following manner.

Sales

Yes
No

Fig.25. responses weather TPMs are not released by distributors

To this query 7.9% of the retailers responded positively. Further it was found that positive
responses for different brands of companies are like Pepsi- 97.4%, Mirinda-97.4% 7up-
97.4%, Mountain Dew -97.4%, Slice-97.4%, Coca-cola-97.4%, Thums-up-97.4%, Sprite-
97.4%, Limca-97.4%, Fanta-97.4%,Mazaa-97.4%, Litchi-0.0%, Frooti-0.0%, Other1- 0.0%.

To anther vital question regarding the promptness of delivery of Pepsi beverage, 21.1% of
respondents replied that it was not prompt which resulted in stock-out. When asked how
many times stock out cases has occurred in the year before last year, the responses were like
this: Once- 0.0%. 2-3 times- 15.8%, 4-6 times- 53%, 7-8 times-0.0%, More than 9 times-
0.0%. In the last year, responses were like this: Once- 0.0, 2-3 times- 5.3%, 4-6 times-13.2%,
7-8 times- 2.6%, More than 9 times- 0.0%. In this Once- 0.0%, 2-3 times- 5.3%, 4-6 times-
7.9%, 7-8 times- 5.3%, More than9 times- 2.6%

If we see the tread of stock- out in the last three year, the following pattern can be
seen.
18

16

14

12

10
Year before last year
Last year
8
This year
6

0
Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-8 times More than 9 times

Fig.26. Stock-out trend of Pepsi in last three years

The stock –out tread is again getting dismal in terms of number of occurrence,
however in terms of number of respondents, the situation is improving.

The frequency of delivery of Pepsi to the retailer is as follows:

Series 1
20
18
16
14
12 Series 1
10
8
6
4
2
0
Daily 2-4 days 5-7 days 8-9 days More than 10 days

Fig.27.Frequency of delivery of Pepsi

55.3%of the respondents said that there is daily delivery of Pepsi while 44.7% said it
to be 2-4 days.

When retailer were asked to rate different soft drink companies in order of their
promptness in delivery, the following was found ( as a percentage)

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

0 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 39.5 2.6 52.6 47.4 26.3 0.0
3 44.7 23.7 28.9 28.9 26.3 0.0
4 0.0 71.7 2.6 0.0 5.3 0.0

In case of promptness in delivery of soft drink, Coca-cola has got highest percentage
of 4 rating, while Pepsi has failed to get so. In case of rating 3 Pepsi has got the
highest percentage of response. But rating 2 mostly received by Frooti and Litchi.

If retailers’ responses are put in a graph, the following can be obtained

 30

25

20
0
1
15
2
3
4
10

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

Fig.29.retailers’ ratings (0-worst to 4-best) as per promptness is delivery of soft drinks

On being asked whether soft drink companies offered trade credit to retailer, 10.5%of
the respondents replied positively. While 94.7% of the respondents (who receive trade
credit) replied that Pepsi offered them the same, it was 89.5% in case of Coca-cola,
97.4% in Litchi, 94.5% in frooti and 97.4% in Other1. Plotting a graph showing
respondents’ ratings regarding credit offers in different brands, the following can be
obtained.

3.5

2.5

2
1
3
1.5
4
1

0.5

Fig.29. Retailers’ rating (0 worst to 4 best) regarding credit offered in different brands

When asked by what percentage their sales would have increased had Pepsi offered
credit to those retailers who did not receive trade credit, their reply as a percentage of
total respondents are as follows:
 Less than 5% 5-10% 10-20% 20-50% More than 50%
92.1 2.6 0.0 00 0.0

The retailers were asked to rate different companies in order of satisfaction level. The
following findings were revealed (expressed as a percentage of total respondents);

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 18.4 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 50.0 15.8 13.2 60.5 42.1 0.0
3 31.6 55.3 68.4 13.2 18.4 0.0
4 0.0 263 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

The rating was done on the scale of: 0-Not satisfied at all,2- Indifferent, 3-satisfied, 4-
Very much satisfied.

Let us now see a graph depicting the overall satisfaction level of customers towards
different soft drink companies.

30

25

20

1
15
2
3
4
10

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other

Fig.30.Retailer rating (0-lowest to 4-highest) of soft drink companies as per

satisfaction level
The last question was regarding rating of brands in order of their sales. Represented in
the following table as a percentage of total respondents:

0 1 2 3 4
Pepsi 0.0 0.0 50.0 15.8 34.2
Mirinda 0.0 0.0 2.6 18.4 78.9
7up 0.0 2.6 44.7 47.4 5.3
M Dew 5.3 36.8 57.9 0.0 0.0
Slice 15.8 52.6 31.6 0.0 0.0
Coca-cola 0.0 0.0 21.1 237 52.6
Thums-up 0.0 0.0 18.4 26.3 55.3
Sprite 0.0 0.0 26 7.9 89.5
Limca 21.1 50.0 28.9 0.0 0.0
Fanta 0.0 0.0 5.3 39.5 55.3
Mazaa 0.0 7.9 63.2 26.3 2.6
Litchi 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 78.9
Frooti 0.0 0.0 10.5 47.4 18.4
Other1 0.0 0.0 36.8 18.4 2.6
Other2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

If we plot a graph of the ratings provided by the respondents then the following can be
obtained:

35

30

25

20
0
1
15 2
3
10 4

Fig.31. Retailers rating (0- worst to4- best) of soft drinks as per their sales
Zone III

The distribution of Pepsi beverage in zone III of Guwahati is carried out by the
company owner distribution channel of NEPD Mktg Pvt Ltd. It caters to needs of the
remaining part of the Guwahati city and it is the largest in terms of area and retailer
served. For the purpose of survey, 151 retailers were selected by random sampling.

Retailers were classified as Busy, Medium and Low as per the type of location they
were situated.

Busy
Medium
Low

Fig.32. Retailers location

Of the total retailers surveyed 66were in busy location while 73 and 12 were in
medium and low respectively.

Now let us look how many retailers have responded positively towards facilities
offered by companies in terms of PoP displays, Glow sign and Hoardings etc.

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

45.0% 58.9% 21.3% 39.1% 47.6% 00.00%

It can be easily interpreted that such facilities offered by Coca-cola and Other1 are
slightly more than what Pepsi offers. On the other hand Pepsi come third in terms of
such offers, followed by frooti and litchi.

Another look at the facilities like Mobile hangers/ stands offered by companies reveal
the following pattern of positive response.

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

5.03% 52.7% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00% 00.00%
Here Pepsi and Coca-cola score almost equal.
Let us now see weather retailer receive trade promotional measures from companies.

Yes
No

Fig.33.Retailers responses weather trade promotional measures are received by them

To this particular query 31.8% of retailer responded positively. Further it was found
that positive responses for different brands of companies are like Pepsi- 90.7%,
Mirinda-91.4%, 7up- 94.0%, Mountain Dew- 99.3%, Fanta- 80.8%, Mazaa-83.4%.
Litchi- 91.4%, Frooti- 78.9%, Other1- 99.3% and Other2- 99.3%.

If we plot a bar diagram showing retailers’ responses towards trade promotional

measures of various brands in a rating scale of 0(lowest) to 4(highest), then the
following is seen.
40

35

30

25
0
20
1
2
15
3
4
10

Fig.34.Retailers responses (0-least to 4-highest) towards trade promotional measure of

brands
When retailer ere asked whether they feel trade promotional measures are not released
to them distributors, they responded in the following manner.

Sales

Yes
No

Fig.35.Responses weather TPMs are not released by distributors.

Regarding this particular query only 3.3% of retailers responded positively, which is
very negligible.

To another vital question regarding the promptness of delivery of Pepsi beverage

11.9% of respondents replied that it was not prompt which resulted in stock-outs of
Pepsi. When asked how many times stock out cases has occurred in the year before
last year, the responses were like this: Once- 0.0%, 2-3times- 15.8%, 4-6 times-5.3%,
7-8 times- 0.0%, More than 9 times- 0.0%. In the last year, responses were like this:
Once-0.0%, 2-3 times- 5.3%, 4-6 times- 13.2%, 7-8 times- 2.7%, more than 9 times-
0.0%. In this year: Once-0.0%, 2-3 times -5.4%, 4-6 times- 7.9%, 7-8 times- 5.3%,
more than 9 times- 0.0%

If we see the trend of stock-out in the last three years, the following pattern can be
seen:
18

16

14

12

10
Yeare before last year
Last years
8
This year
6

0
Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-8 times More than 9 times

Fig.36.Stock-out tread of Pepsi in Last three Years

The frequency of delivery of Pepsi to the retailers is as follows:

Series 1
120

100

80
Series 1
60

40

20

0
Daily 2-4 days 5-7 days 8-10 days More than 10 days

Fig.37. Frequency of delivery of Pepsi

80.8% of the respondents said that there is daily delivery of Pepsi while 18.5% said it
to be 2-4 days and 0.7% said it to be 5-7 days.

When retailer were asked to rate different soft drink compared in order of their
promptness in delivery, the following was found ( as a percentage):

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.0 0.0
2 39.1 21.9 78.8 76.2 39.1 0.7
3 47.0 51.7 9.9 6.6 7.9 0.7
4 4.6 25.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0

In case of promptness in delivery of soft drinks, Pepsi and Coca-cola are going hand
in hand in the race. Although Coca-cola is leading in terms of rating 4, but Pepsi has
got almost equal rating with Coca-cola in terms 3 and leading in rating 2.

If retailers’ responses are put in a bar graph, the following can be obtained
 120

100

80
0
1
60 2
3
4
40

20

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1

Fig.38. Retailers’ ratings (0-worst to 4-best) as per promptness in delivery of soft

drinks

On being asked whether soft drink companies offered trade credit to retailers, 9.9% of
the respondents replied positively. While 100% of the respondents (who receive trade
credit) replied that Pepsi offers them the same, it was 91.7% in case of Coca-cola,
94.7% in Litchi, 91.4% in frooti and 96.0% in other1. Plotting a graph showing
respondents’ ratings regarding credit offers indifferent brands, the following can be
obtained.
14

12

10

8
0
1
6 2
3
4 4

Fig.39. Retailers’ rating (0worst to 4-best) regarding credit offered in different brands

When asked by what percentage their sale would have increased had Pepsi offered
credit to those retailers who did not receive trade credit, their reply as a percentage of
total respondents are as follows:
 Less than 5% 5-10% 10-20% 20-50% More than 50%
89.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

The retailers were asked to rate different companies in order of satisfaction level. The
following findings were revealed (expressed as a percentage of total respondents):

Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 8.6 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
2 41.7 318 47.0 65.6 39.7 0.3
3 47.7 57.0 41.7 17.2 9.3 0.0
4 0.7 9.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0

The rating was done on the scale of: 0- not satisfied at all, 1- not satisfied, 2-
indifferents, 3- satisfied, 4- Very much satisfied.

Let us now see a graph depicting the overall satisfaction level of customer’s towards
different soft drink companies.

120

100

80
0
1
60
2
3
4
40

20

0
Pepsi Caca-cola Litchi Frooti other1 Other2

Fig.40. Retailer rating (0-lowest to 4-highest) of soft drink companies as per

satisfaction level
The last question was regarding rating of brands in order of their scale. Represented in
the following table as a percentage of the total respondents:

0 1 2 3 4
Pepsi 0.0 0.7 13.2 35.8 50.3
Mirinda 0.0 0.0 3.3 17.9 78.1
7up 0.0 0.7 36.4 503 119
M Dew 0.0 19.9 69.5 9.3 1.3
Slice 4.0 69.9 24.5 1.3 0.0
Coca-cola 0.0 0.0 132 47.7 377
Thums-up 0.0 0.7 20.5 27.8 49.7
Sprite 0.0 0.0 7.3 26.5 642
Limca 8.6 33.1 556 0.7 0.7
Fanta 0.0 0.0 119 31.8 54.3
Mazaa 0.0 1.3 51.7 39.1 6.0
Litchi 0.0 0.0 146 25.2 49.7
Frooti 0.0 0.0 119 38.4 331
Other1 0.0 12.6 278 7.3 1.3
Other2 0.0 1.3 0.0 07 0.0

If we plot a graph of the ratings provided by the respondents then the following can be
obtained:

140

120

100

80
0
1
60 2
3
40 4

20

Fig.41.Retailers rating (0-worst to 4- best) of soft drink as per their scale

 Comparative Analysis of Different Zone
Let us now look at a comparative analysis of the main variable with respect to all the
places .i.e. Tezpur and Zone I, II, III of Guwahati.

First of all, a look at responses to the most vital question regarding promptness of
delivery of Pepsi across all the places reveals the following pattern:

90

80

70

60

50
Yes
NO
40

30

20

10

0
Tezpur Zone I Zone II Zone III

Fig.42. Promptness of deliver of Pepsi across different zone (represented in percentage)

Now it can be seen that in Zone I, delivery of Pepsi is least prompt following by Zone
II, Tezpur and Zone III respectively and hence resulted in stock-outs.

Let us now see how frequently Pepsi delivery its drink to retailers in all the four place.

90

80

70

60

50 Daily
2-4 days
40 5-7 days
8-10 days
30

20

10

0
Tezpur Zone I Zone II Zone III

Fig.43. Frequency of delivery of Pepsi across different place (represented in percentage)

It is quite clear that delivery is most frequent in zone III and least frequent in Zone I
daily delivery of Pepsi is in highest percentage in Zone III and it has resulted in lest
number of stock-out incidents (as evident from fig.31) in zone III.

Retailers have rated in different manner regarding promptness of delivery of different

soft drink. If we see the responses where retailers have given highest rating 4 (best)
across the four place, the following pattern can be seen:

80

70

60

50
Tezpur
40 Zone I
Zone II
30 Zone III

20

10

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

Fig.44. Rating 4 given by retailers to different soft drinks in terms of

promptness in delivery across different place represented in percentage).

It is apparent that Coca-cola has got rating 4 more number across all the place. In
Tezpur, Other 2 has got a significant number of 4 rating.

Similarly, we can it for rating 2 across all places. For the sake of convenience, rating 3
is being clubbed with rating 2. This is being since there is no significant number of
rating 3 responded by the retailers in the entire four places. This convention regarding
clubbing of ratings is being followed in later analyses also.
 120

100

80

Tezpur
60 Zone I
Zone II
Zone III
40

20

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

Fig.45. Rating 2giving by retailers to different soft drink in term of promptness

in delivery across different place (represented in percentage).

Now, responses for rating 2 show a similar pattern in all four place. Litchi and
Frooti has got slightly higher percentage of rating as compared to others across all
zones.

Again, we can see the same for rating 0 (worst) Rating 1 is being clubbed with rating
0.
30

25

20

Tezpur
15 Zone I
Zone III
Zone III2
10

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

Fig.46. Rating 0 giving by retailers to different in terms of promptness in delivery

across different place (represented in percentage).

Across all the four zone Pepsi has got a significant number of 0 rating while Coca-
cola has not.
As far as the retailers’ responses towards satisfaction level of different soft drink is
concerned, the following pattern can in for rating 4 .i.e. very much satisfied (here
rating 3 is being clubbed with rating 4):
90

80

70

60

50 Tezpur
Zone I
40 Zone II
Zone III
30

20

10

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

Fig.4.7.Rating 4 giving by retailers to different soft drink in terms of

satisfaction level across different place (represented in percentage)

Retailers are very much satisfaction for Coca-cola and Litchi in all four zone, while
Pepsi has not been able to satisfy retailers as much as its main competitors.

Let us now look at the pattern of rating 2 (i,e indifferent) for satisfaction level across
different Zone:
120

100

80

Tezpur
60 Zone I
Zone II
Zone III
40

20

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

Fig.48.Rating 2 giving by retailer to different soft drinks in terms satisfaction level

across different place (represented in percentage).
Similarly for rating 0i.e. not satisfied, the graph is liked this (Here rating 1 is clobbed
with rating 0):

40

35

30

25
Tezpur
20 Zone I
Zone III
15 Zone III2

10

0
Pepsi Coca-cola Litchi Frooti Other1 Other2

Fig.49. Rating 0 giving by retailers to different soft drink in terms of satisfaction level
across different place (represented in percentage).

Retailers across all the four places are not satisfied with Pepsi and as a result they
have giving rating0. Especially in Zone I and Zone II, unsatisfied retailers outnumber
those of Tezpur and Zone III of Guwahati.
 CHAPTER V

MAJOR FINDINGS
 V.MAJOR FINDINGS
The major findings of the study are listed below:

1. A dismal picture that has come to light is the stock-out problem of Pepsi soft
drinks due to lack of promptness in delivery. Cases of stock out has lead to
retailers switching over to competitor’s brands especially in Zone I and Zone II
of Guwahati. A few such incidents have also occurred in Tezpur and Zone III
of Guwahati.
2. The tread of stock-out in all the four places in the last three years has remainder
the same. While the number of retailer facing stock-out has been decreasing.
The number of times it occurred has been increasing. Zone III of Guwahati has
shown a stable trend in this respect over the last two year.
3. Coca-cola has outsmarted Pepsi and all other companies in their promptness in
delivery. Again in Zone III of Guwahati, the distribution channel is satisfaction
in delivering the products to the retailers. In Zone II of Guwahati, retailer haver
rated Pepsi very dismally in terms of promptness in delivery.
4. Retailers have rated Coca-cola highly in terms of satisfaction arising out of
distribution of the soft drink. The percentage of satisfied of Pepsi is very less in
comparison to that Coca-cola. Litchi shows a good number of satisfies retailer
in all the places. In case of indifferent retailer regarding satisfaction level, the
percentage of respondents are more in case of Pepsi and Frooti, following by
Other 1 and Litchi respectively. Pepsi has been giving rating 0 more
comparison to its competitors’. The rating for Pepsi is worth in Zone I and
Zone II of Guwahati.
5. As far as the trade promotional measures of Pepsi and Coca-cola are
concerned, both are providing almost the same volume of TPMs. But in case of
Litchi and Other 1, they are much more. There is a tendency among retailer that
when they don’t receive TPMs the feel that distributors don’t release them such
offers. This is more apparent in Tezpur and Zone I of Guwahati.
6. In all the Zone of Guwahati and Tezpur , Pepsi has offered more trade credit to
the retailer than Coca-cola, Litchi and Frooti. But Other1 is also giving credit
which can be compared to that of Pepsi.
7. Pepsi soft drink that has the most sale in the market are Mirinda, followed by
Pepsi, 7up, Mountain Dew ad slice. Among Coca-cola brands, thums-up, sprite,
Fanta and Mazaa had good sale while Litchi sale is dismal. Litchi and Frooti
had very good sale market.
8. Pepsi is behind its main competitor Coca-cola in term of PoP display,
hoardings, glow signs, mobile hangers etc. Provided to the retailers in Tezpur
as well as Zone I and Zone II of Guwahati. However the satisfactory in Zone
III of Guwahati where the company owned distribution channel operators.
9. From the remarks received from retailers, it can be perceived that often it is
sale of the product that makes them satisfied with a brand or a company.
 CHAPTER VI

RECOMMENDATIONS
 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
After making the comparative study of the distribution network of Pepsi vis-a-vis
Coca-cola and others, the following recommendation are being made for further
enhancement of distribution:

1. The foremost problem that Pepsi is facing is comparatively weak distribution

than Coca-cola, especially in Tezpur and Zone I and Zone II of Guwahati.
2. Promptness in delivering the products to the retailers is very necessary to curb
the menace of stock out.
3. Pepsi (or for that matter NEPDPL) needs to seriously think over the shrinking
market due much aggressive campaign of Coca-cola in providing visi-coolers
to the retailers.
4. A large portion of the market especially in low and medium level of locality is
captured by Litchi who’s lower pricing giving itself a comparative advantage.
Pepsi needs to work on its pricing strategy so as to reap this spectrum of low
cost soft drink.
5. The recent price hike in Mazaa by Rs2 has adversely affected its market.
Therefore, Slice can take advantage of this situation may be by introducing
tetra pack of slice.
6. NEPDPL can at least double its effort to make much prompter and effective
delivery of its product to the retailers.
7. NEPD Marketing Pvt Ltd can also think of operating in Zone I ND Zone II of
Guwahati city. It will make the distribution channel much effective, efficient
and professional.
8. Pepsi has been forced to restore to push marketing by giving trade credit to
retailers which Coca-cola has got the luxury for not resorting to. Improvement
in delivery, aggressive marketing will also give Pepsi such Luxury.
 CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSION
 VII.CONCLUSION

Pepsi has got a brand image that deeply embedded in the minds of the consumers. It,
therefore, does not make any sense not reap rich harvest out of it. At percent, certain
lacunae are creating difficulties in proper marketing of Pepsi by NEPDPL. In the
Northeast. There are mainly concerned with weak distribution channels that are in
hands of some individual distribution firms. NEPDPL needs to seriously look over
this things which has resulted in stock outs and subsequent less of market. Pepsi co
has got a policy of managing its supply chain on its own. Things will definitely look
brighter once NEPDPL also adopts such a policy and expand the power and horizons
of NEPD Marketing Pvt Ltd.

_____________________________________________________________________
 PREFACE
All students undertaking professional courses like master of business
administration (MBA) should experience a particular exposure to the working
environment of corporate organization so that they develop into fine business
professional with the capacity to tackle any business problem in the near further. With
this end in view the student of the Department of Business Administration, Tezpur
University are assigned to undergo two months summer training to reputed
organizations and thereafter prepare a project report on the assigned topic with proper
recommendations and suggestions.

The author was sent North East Pure Drinks (P) Ltd, Pepsi, Guwahati, where a
study was carried out to get an overview of the distribution network ink of Pepsi soft
drinks in comparison to Coca-cola and others.

The task area for the project was confined to Guwahati and Tezpur. Best efforts
were applied to accomplish the task in the stipulated period of two months. As apart of
this project the author has conducted an extensive study on the distribution chain,
promptness in delivery and a satisfaction level or retailers to different soft drink
companies in Guwahati and Tezpur town market. The entire recommendations put
forwarded in this study are an endeavour keeping in vew the perception/evaluations of
retailer selling soft drinks.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
No research has been completed until the whole documentation of work is completed.
This research would not have been completed without a few people who have
supplied me the help, information, guidance and inspiration that have enriched my
research work. I would like acknowledge my fullest to them.

At the very fast I own may thanks to Rajeev K. Deputy Director (Training &
Placement) Tezpur University and Tridib R. Sharma Placement Coordinator of the
Department of Business Administration, Tezpur University, for Recommending me
And giving me this rare opportunity to undergo summer training at NEPD (P) Ltd,
Pepsi, Guwahati

My chief debt and sincere gratitude are to Dr.Mrinmoy Kumar sarma, Reader,
Department of Business of business Administration, Tezpur University, for his
invaluable guidance, support and encouragement to identify major issues, concepts
and techniques throughout the study and completion of the project work.

I would also like to thanks Ms. Rajashree Goswami, Marketing Development

Coordinator, NEPD (P) Ltd., Guwahati., for giving me the opportunity to undergo this
two month summer project in the company and for her consistent supported
encouragement during the entire project. I would also like to thank Mr, Akhilesh Sing,
Mr. Koushik Sarma, Customer Executives, for their prolific guidance and suggestions
duringthe project. I owe much to the entire staff of NEPD for providing me an
excellent working environment and their fullest efforts to complete my project.

Finally i would like to extend many thanks to my parents, my sister, my aunt and my
friend their support and suggestions during the project work, in the absence of the help
and moral support of these people this project would not have been completed.
 CONTENTS
Page No

List of Table.................................................................................................................I

List of Graphs.............................................................................................................II

List of Appendices.....................................................................................................IV

List of Exhibits............................................................................................................V

Executive Summery...................................................................................................VI

I. Introduction................................................................................................1
PepsiCo.........................................................................................................1
NEPD Pvt Ltd................................................................................................2
II. Objectives, scope and Limitation ..............................................................5
III. Research Methodology ...............................................................................7
IV. Analysis.......................................................................................................10
Tezpur..........................................................................................................10
Guwahati......................................................................................................17
ZoneI............................................................................................................17
ZoneII..........................................................................................................24
ZoneIII.........................................................................................................31
Comparative Analysis of all zones..............................................................38
V. Major Finding ...........................................................................................43
VI. Recommendations .....................................................................................45
VII. Conclusion...................................................................................................46

Bibliography...........................................................................................................IX

Appendix ................................................................................................................X
 LIST OF TABLE
Page No

1. Comparative MRPs of different brands 3

2. Positive retailer response for PoP Displays etc. in Tezpur 10
3. Positive retailer response for mobile hangers etc. In Tezpur 10
4. Retailers’ rating of promptness in delivery in Tezpur 13
5. Retailers’ rating as per satisfaction level in Tezpur 15
6. Retailers’ rating of brands as per sales in Tezpur 16
7. Positive retailer response for PoP Displays etc. In Zone I 17
8. Positive retailer response for Mobile hangers etc. In Zone II 17
9. Retailers’ rating of promptness in delivery in Zone I 20
10. Retailers’ rating as per satisfaction level in Zone I 22
11. Retailers’ rating of brands as per sales in Zone I 23
12. Positive retailer response for PoP Display etc. In Zone II 24
13. Positive retailer response for Mobile hangers etc. In Zone II 24
14. Retailers’ rating of promptness in delivery in Zone II 27
15. Retailers’ rating as per satisfaction level in Zone II 29
16. Retailers’ rating of brand as per sales in Zone II 30
17. Positive retailer response for PoP Displays etc. In Zone III 31
18.