.

BONGULLY ROSHOGULLA
Our Product
 Made of whole milk .
 Contains pro-biotic
culture
 Mellow in mouth-feel.
 Flavoured with rose
petal extract.
 Contains whey protein
powder which make it
more nutritious
Market Research
 Objective - To develop a basic knowledge of the consumer
demand of sweet products and healthy food stuff in Anand
district.

 Research Plan

Collection of
Decisions
Data, both Analysis of
based on the
primary and data recovered
analysis
secondary
 Research Findings
 Estimated population:
 163598 (2011)
 180586 (2016)
 196884 (2021)
 Consumer behaviour related to product attributes
For Self Consumption As gifts or offerings
Calorie Content (Health
8% 11% value)
4% 17%
2% Occasion
8% Price
49%
Quality (packaging,
38% place of sale etc.)
64% Taste
Research Findings continued…
 Nuclear Family System

 Increasing number of people becoming health

conscious

 Bulk purchase and elongated period of consumption

 Emotional value – traditional and cultural identity

Research Findings continued…
 Large number of players in food industry – both
local and multinational
 Increasing share of students in population
 Market Needs
 Affordable canned sweets.
 Packaged Roshogulla withholding the international
food standards for NRI customers.
 Value for money in terms of good taste and quality
Market Segmentation - Behavioral
Criteria Percentage Projected
of criteria overall
Behavioral in sample population
segment survey fitting
criteria
(2011)

Do not prefer People who 58.09% 95034

Prefer Sweet consume
sweet
sweet once
in a week

People who People who People who 41.91% 68563

consume sweets consume sweets consume
atleast once a once in 2-3 sweet once
week weeks in 2-3 weeks
Market Segmentation - Psychographic

Psychographic
Segmentation

Health
Health conscious
indifferent
consumer
consumer

Prefer the
Be indifferent to
Probiotic culture
Probiotic culture
presence in the
presence
Roshogulla
Marget Segmentation - Geographic

Geographical
Segmentation

Urban Area Rural Area

Market Segmentation - Demographic

 Age : 15-60years

 Income level : 1. Upper Class

2. Upper Middle Class
3. Middle Class
4. Lower Middle Class
5. Lower Class
Targeting
 People who prefer Sweet
 Health conscious upper, upper middle and
middle class people with a liking towards
sweets.
 People living in Anand town and Vidya Nagar
rural area.
 People from the age groups of 15 to 60 years
 NRIs
 Youngster 'cool and trendy’
Positioning
 Point of parity: Quality of Bongully Roshogulla is
equivalent to canned sweets of Haldiram and AMUL. The
packaging and hygienic conditions of production are all
ISO certified, as with the case with any competitor.

 Point of difference: Our product has pro-biotic culture

which makes it superior from available product in the
market. This not only adds value to the composition of the
product but also increases the emotional benefits which
the consumers derive from having our product.
Competitor
 Local sweet producer

 Local canned sweet

producers of
Kambhat, Vadodara,
Surat

 Haldiram Sweets

 Amul’s Gulab Jaamun

 Demand Estimation
 Basis of demand estimation
(a) Total sales of Sweets.
(b) Total sales of Probiotic Lassi.
 Total sales = ((Gulab Jaamun sales+ Roshogulla
sales)/2)*5=15.75 Tons/Month.
 Thus the total sales come out to be 15.75MT/month
 Total Pro-biotic sales =1000 glasses/day.
 Consumers of Lassi are subset of consumers of Sweets.
 Total potential market= 189 MT/Year.
 SWOT ANALYSIS
STRENGTHS WEAKNESS
•Product quality •Prefer fresh sweets over the
•Value for money canned
•Hygienic product •Stick to the traditional Gujarati
•High shelf life Sweets
•Pro-biotic Culture •People are unaware of the pro-
biotic culture

OPPORTUNITIES THREAT
•Increase in income. •Tag of Medicinal Roshogulla .
•Increase in quality and hygiene •With the advent of untapped
concern. market, it may happen that a
•Unavailability of quality major player may get into the
Roshogulla. market .
 Competitive Force
 Threat of intense segment rivalry - Low

 Threat of new entrant - High

 Threat of substitute product - High

 Threat of buyer’s growing bargaining power - Low

 Threat of supplier’s growing bargaining power - Low

Thank you
ANKIT SAXENA
JYOTSANA
PIYUSH SINGH
SUMIT SAHA
TEJAS SUHAS MULEY