Download BRANDING STRATEGY FOR EFFECTIVE AGRICULTURAL

BRANDING STRATEGY FOR EFFECTIVE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING IN NIGERIA
BY
IKPORAH ESTHER NGOZI (MRS)
PG/MBA/11/60239
A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTERS OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION, (MBA) DEGREE IN MARKETING
TO
DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, ENUGU CAMPUS
DECEMBER, 2012.
1
TITLE PAGE
BRANDING STRATEGY FOR EFFECTIVE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING IN NIGERIA
BY
IKPORAH ESTHER NGOZI (MRS)
PG/MBA/11/60239
A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTERS OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION, (MBA) DEGREE IN MARKETING
TO
DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, ENUGU CAMPUS
SUPERVISOR: DR. J. I. UDUJI
DECEMBER 2012.
2
CERTIFICATION
I,
Ikporah Esther Ngozi a post Graduate student of the Department of
Marketing
of Business Administration,
University of Nigeria, Enugu
Campus, with Registration No PG/MBA/11/60239 hereby certify that this
project titled: Branding Strategy for Agricultural Marketing in Nigeria is
adequate in scope and quality, for the fulfilment of the requirements for the
award of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) in marketing in the
Faculty of Business Administration, University of Nigeria Enugu Campus.
_________________
Ikporah Esther Ngozi
PG/MBA/11/60239
3
APPROVAL
This project as carried out by Ikporah Esther Ngozi with Registration number
PG/MBA/11/60239 of Marketing Department,
Faculty of Business
Administration, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, is hereby approved.
___________________
Dr. J. I. UDUJI
Project Supervisor
Date:_____________
________________
DR S.C MOGULUWA
Head of Department
Date: _______________
4
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to God Almighty who has been my help in ages past
and who remains my hope for years to come.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My appreciation goes to God Almighty for his grace and mercy which
saw me through the course of this program.
My supervisor, Dr J.I Uduji, whom I am greatly indebted to for his
indispensable time and direction towards the successful achievement of this
work.
My sincere gratitude goes to the Head of Department, my able
lecturers of Faculty of Business Administration of University of Nigeria
Enugu Campus whose untiring efforts made my academic pursuit a success.
I must give kudos to my Husband, Mr Samuel Obiora Ikporah, for his
financial, moral and spiritual support.
My immense gratitude also goes to my Children Chiamaka, Oluchukwu and
Onyedikachukwu for their support and understanding throughout the course
of my programme.
It is also my pleasure to acknowledge the help of my colleagues and
course mates for their encouragement. To you all, I owe debts of thanks.
6
ABSTRACT
Branding strategies have become an accepted part of marketing activity and it is the norm
for manufactured and processed food products to be offered to consumers as branded
products. However, as any vigilant consumer would have noticed, there is still a wide
range of agricultural products that remains unbranded. Agricultural and horticultural
products are often relatively unprocessed and do not have clear brands associated with
particular suppliers. It has become common to find generic brand associated with groups
of suppliers, or are merely used as labels to identify particular attributes of the products.
In attempting to explore such issues it is often assumed that the lack of such activity is a
result of the small firms that exist in the industry, or simply because of the lack of
marketing knowledge amongst producers. Farmers have normally sold their products as
commodities. This means that there is no appreciable difference between the produce of a
farmer and that of another farmer. Nigeria’s agricultural marketing competitiveness has
been bedevilled by a lot of market related factors that has to do with the absence of
standardization of products in the market place. Standardized system of grading and
measurement, which enhances marketing efficiency, is not a feature of agricultural
markets in Nigeria.
Grades are determined arbitrarily by sizes, colour or smell.
Measures come in various types of metal and plastic bowls, dishes, tins, baskets and
calabashes. Most of the measures are susceptible to manipulation to change volume, in an
attempt to take advantage of buyers.
In addition, sorting, branding and packaging
activities which are not carried out further reduces the ability of using a sound marketing
system to boost farmers’ income and ensure adequate protection of consumers in the
country. The study would therefore address the importance of branding as a strategy for
effective agricultural marketing in Nigeria and its ability to make agricultural marketing
more effective and competitive.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
Approval
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ii
Certification
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iii
Dedication -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iv
Acknowledgements
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
v
Abstract
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ix
Table of Contents -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
vi
1.1 Background of Study -
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1.2 Statement of Problem - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
1.3 Objectives of Study - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
1.4 Research questions - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1.5 Research Hypotheses -
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1.6 Significance of the Study - -
-
-
-
-
-
6
1.7 Limitations of the Study
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
1.8 Definition of Terms - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
References -
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
2.2 Agricultural Marketing -
-
-
-
-
-
11
2.3 The Concept of Branding- -
-
-
-
-
-
17
2.4 Branding Strategy Decision -
-
-
-
-
-
25
-
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
-
-
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
-
-
8
2.5 Branding as a Strategy tool for Brand Equity Loyalty and
Positioning in the Consumer Buying Decision -
-
37
2.6 Branding for Effective Segmentation of Agricultural Markets
40
2.7 Summary of the Review
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
References -
-
-
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
-
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
3.2
Scope of the Study -
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
3.3
Research Design -
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
3.4
Methods of Data Collection
-
-
-
-
-
51
3.5
Method of Data Analysis
-
-
-
-
-
55
-
-
-
-
-
56
References -
-
-
-
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.0 Introduction
-
-
4.1 Data Presentation
4.2 Testing Hypothesis
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
57
-
-
-
-
-
-
57
-
-
-
-
-
-
76
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
86
5.2 Summary of findings -
-
-
-
-
-
-
86
5.3 Conclusion
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
87
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
88
5.5 Further Research Areas
-
-
-
-
-
-
88
-
-
-
-
-
-
89
92
-
5.4 Recommendations
Bibliography
Appendix I
-
-
9
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Agriculture is a major sector of the Nigeria economy. From the nation's
earliest days, Agriculture has held a crucial place in the Nigerian economy
and culture and plays an important role in the society; the provision of food
through agriculture is man‘s first priority for his continuous existence.
Agriculture is very important to the world economy especially Nigeria and
other developing countries of Africa. It not only meets the food needs of the
entire population but also supplements the foreign exchange resources
through export of farm produce as well as provide raw materials for our
industries. It is also a vital development tool and has features that make is a
unique instrument for development.
Over 60% of Nigerians practice
agriculture in different scales. In economic terms, Agriculture was a major
revenue earner for Nigeria. Prior to the discovery of oil in Nigeria in 1958 at
Olobiri-near Port Harcourt, the country‘s economy was largely driven by
Agriculture through the export of agricultural cash crops such as cocoa,
rubber, kola nut, cotton, hides and skins, groundnut, palm produce.
Agriculture is and still remains an important sector of the Nigerian economy
in spite of the importance of crude oil which has been unduly emphasized
over agriculture.
No doubt, agriculture provides the greatest avenue for
employment generation, income and food for the Nigerian populace. Its
intrinsic position as a source of raw materials for key industries and a major
source of foreign exchange earnings has further added to its pre-eminence
among all known occupations. The Nigerian agricultural trade policy ensures
food security, promotes domestic trade, enhances access to agricultural raw
materials as well as promotes the use of modern technology and promotion of
10
quality agricultural products.
Recognizing the tremendous potentials of
agricultural products, the government has accepted the view to make
agriculture the mainstay of the economy.
Agricultural marketing therefore deals with the transfer of agricultural
produce from the farms to the consumption centres. It covers the services
involved in moving an agricultural product from the farm-gate to the ultimate
consumers. Numerous interrelated activities are involved in doing this, such
as planning production, growing and harvesting, grading, packing, food
processing, distribution, advertising and sale of agricultural produce. One of
the interests of the farmers is to get a fair return on their produce in the
market. At present the farmers who are spread all over the country make the
sales of their surplus products to the villagers. Some portion of the output is
also sold direct or through marketing agencies (middlemen) in the markets.
The way the produce is sold does not guarantee adequate return to the
farmers. However, value-added agriculture allows farmers to differentiate
their products from the products of others. Product differentiation means that
your product is somehow different or better than that of the others. The way
to bring this difference to the attention of your customer is by branding your
product. Branding allows you to clearly identify and personalize the superior
nature of your product relative to those of your competitors. If your brand
succeeds in convincing your customer that you have a superior product, it
follows that the customer will be willing to pay more for your product
relative to the products of your competitors. A branding strategy is often
employed in the marketing of manufactured or processed food products but
many other food products including agricultural products have comparatively
lower levels of branding; hence the frequent calls to utilize branding as a
marketing strategy for Agricultural products.
Branding is essential for
advertising effectiveness; this is because it is branding that distinguishes
11
similar products of different manufacturers. It helps consumer to establish the
brand, and identify its various producers. Branding according to Kotler
(2003:413), is the use of a name, term, symbol or design to identify a
product. A good brand speeds up shopping for customers and this reduces the
marketers selling time and effort.
When brand is emphasized, it is an inducement to get the buyer to develop
loyalty and carry out repeat purchases. A brand also identifies the firm
behind the product and this offers a guarantee of consistent quality or even
satisfaction. To a seller or marketer, branding present an opportunity to
aggressively stimulate demand for his product. Unless it is branded, a
potential customer has no way of identifying the product a particular seller or
marketer is offering. Besides, only branded products can meaningfully be
advertised and distinguished from substitutes in order to meet up with the
challenges of competition in the market.
1.2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.
The food crisis in Nigeria can be attributed to the neglect of agriculture
which provides food for the people, raw materials for industries and
employment opportunity for the majority of Nigerians. This is assumed to be
the sole cause of the decline in recent years of Agricultural marketing in
Nigeria. Marketing of agricultural products which has been a major source of
income to most farmers in Nigeria has been characterized with a lot of
deficiencies which have constrained sustainable development and marketing
in one way or the other. This stems from the fact that most agricultural
producers are not well educated and lack the prerequisite knowledge on how
best to package their produce in order to remain competitive in the market.
Until recently agricultural marketers did not lay emphasis on the branding
and packaging of their produce. Competition in the agricultural sector has
12
contributed a lot to the present form of the packaging of agricultural produce.
However, some agricultural farmers/firms have not appreciated the need to
make some periodic re-evaluation of the impact of packaging in the
marketing of their produce and to find out if the traditional packaging used
by producers had gone beyond those of product protection and containment.
Farmers have normally sold their products as commodities. This means that
there is no appreciable difference between the produce of a farmer and that of
another farmer. Nigeria‘s agricultural marketing competitiveness has been
bedevilled by a lot of market related factors that has to do with the absence of
standardization of products in the market place. Standardized system of
grading and measurement, which enhances marketing efficiency, is not a
feature of agricultural markets in Nigeria. Grades are determined arbitrarily
by sizes, colour or smell. Measures come in various types of metal and
plastic bowls, dishes, tins, baskets and calabashes. Most of the measures are
susceptible to manipulation to change volume, in an attempt to take
advantage of buyers. In addition, sorting, branding and packaging activities
which are not carried out further reduces the ability of using a sound
marketing system to boost farmers‘ income and ensure adequate protection of
consumers in the country. The study would therefore address the importance
of branding as a strategy for effective Agricultural marketing in Nigeria and
its ability to make agricultural marketing more effective and competitive.
1.3
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The research work would be anchored on the following objectives;
1.
To determine the attributes, benefits, values and beliefs that consumers
derive from branded products and the effect of branding strategy on the
marketing of Agricultural products.
13
2.
To Assess how branding influence consumers‘ choice and increase the
number of users of Agricultural products in Nigeria.
3.
To determine the extent branding contributes to profit making among
Agricultural producers.
4.
To determine if branding contributes to effective distribution and
segmentation of agricultural markets.
5.
To evaluate the role branding plays in the pricing of agricultural
products in Nigeria.
1.4
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Apparently some of the questions the study intend to give answers to
include:
1.
Does branding as strategy have effect on the marketing of Agricultural
products in Nigeria and increase their patronage of such products?
2.
How does branding influence the choice of the consumers of
Agricultural produce?
3.
What contribution has branding as a strategy on profit making amongst
Agricultural producers?
4.
Has branding strategy any contribution to the effective distribution and
segmentation of agricultural markets in Nigeria?
5.
What role does branding play in the pricing of agricultural products?
14
1.5
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The study will be guided by the following hypotheses:
1.
Branding strategy does not have affect on the marketing of
Agricultural products in Nigeria.
2.
Branding does not influence the choice of consumers of Agricultural
products
3.
Branding does not contributions to profit making among Agricultural
producers.
4.
Branding does not contribute to the effective distribution and
segmentation of agricultural products.
5.
Branding do not plays any role in the pricing of agricultural products in
Nigeria.
1.6
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study is significant to every stakeholder in the Agricultural sector in
Nigeria. This will help them make the necessary brand decisions that will
increase productivity in the country. To consumers of Agricultural products,
this study will benefit them in knowing how to identify their preferred
products so as to remain loyal to the company‘s product and also avoid
purchasing adverse products. This will also assist the government to make
relevant policies as regards Agricultural marketing and branding in Nigeria.
More importantly, the study will provide agricultural marketers an insight
into the role product branding and packaging could play in their products.
Finally, this research study will assist other researchers in getting materials as
a secondary data to break new grounds in branding Agricultural products in
Nigeria.
15
1.7
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
Many challenges were faced in the course of executing this work. Finance
which was the major resources for the success of this research study was
inadequate. There was little or no time to carry out further studies as the
semester was too short. Problems were also encountered in the gathering of
information both primary and secondary data because of illiteracy of the
farmers, who could not give detailed information on their marketing
activities. Also, incomplete response and some misleading information from
respondents constituted another limitation of the study. Besides, the
researcher tried to be as objective as possible in analyzing the data collected.
However, granted that the research has some limitations, none is considered
as serious as to affect the validity of this research study.
1.8
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Marketing: Marketing can be defined as an important set of creative human
activities aimed at identifying, anticipating and satisfying human needs and
wants through exchange as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Agriculture: Agriculture refers to the art and science of the land for the
purpose of growing food stuff for both animal and human consumption.
Agricultural Marketing: This covers the services involved in moving an
agricultural product from the farm to the consumer. Numerous interconnected
activities are involved in doing this, such as planning, production, growing
and harvesting, grading, packaging, transport, storage, agro- and food
processing, distribution, advertising and sale. Some definitions would even
include ―the acts of buying supplies, renting equipment, (and) paying
labour‖, arguing that marketing is everything a business does.
16
Product:
This is a complex mix of tangible and intangible attributes
including packaging, colour, price, manufacturer‘s prestige, retailer‘s prestige
which the buyer (consumer) may accept as offering satisfaction of wants and
needs.
Trade Mark: This is a brand mark or a brand name with legal protection
Branding: The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines a brand as a
―name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them intended to
identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to
differentiate them from those of other sellers. It is a product strategy of using
a symbol or design or a combination of them for the purpose of product
identification and differentiation
Assembler: These are merchants or wholesalers who may reside in the
immediate production area and operate in only one local market where
production quantity is enough to sustain his operation
17
REFERENCES
Achison, C.B. (2006), Product Planning and Development, Enugu, UNEC.
Anyaogu, P. M and Uduji, J. I., (2012), Marketing Communications: Theory
and Practice, Enugu, Educational Networks Development Limited.
Darrah, L. B. (1997), Food Marketing, New York: Ronald Press Company.
Ehikwe, A. E. (2002), Transportation and Distribution Management,
Precision Publishers Ltd.,
Kotler, P. and Armstrong P. (2008), Principles of Marketing, (12th Edition),
Prentice Hall Inc.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2004), Marketing Management, Analysis,
Planning, Implementation and Control,
Eagle Wood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Suffork R & Stapleton J. (1995), Marketing Clay, The Chance Press Ltd.
Udeagha A. O. (1995), Principles and Process of Marketing, Enugu, J.T.C.
Publishers.
18
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter therefore will deal with the review of the issues relating to the
problem under study which is on the concept of ―Branding strategy for
effective Agricultural marketing in Nigeria‖. In this chapter, detailed review
of this concept will be assessed through the review of related literature and
journals under the following outline.
1. Agricultural Marketing Concept
2. The Concept of branding.
3. Branding decisions for effective Agricultural marketing in relations to
price, and profitability.
4. Branding for effective and efficient distribution of Agricultural
products. Example the marketing of maize, rice and vegetables (ugu) in
Nigeria.
5. Branding as a strategic tool for Brand equity, loyalty and positioning in
the consumer buying decision
6. Branding for effective segmentation of Agricultural markets.
In the course of this research work, the contributions of many scholars were
extensively researched on especially in relation to the topic and the
information got has proved a valuable contribution to this research. Though
Branding was solely concerned initially as a marketing strategy and
promotional medium, it has subsequently proved to be a means of improving
the marketing and sales of agricultural products.
19
2.2
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
According to Adesina (1995:9) Agricultural marketing comprises all
functions and agencies who perform the activities of satisfying consumer
wants, thereby helping to achieve organization‘s long range goals and
objectives through input, production, distribution, consumption and
regulation. With specialization in production on the rise, Agricultural
marketing systems have increasingly become more complex. Today, most
producers and consumers of agricultural products live far apart, meaning that
there are a number of middle men involved in the provision of crucial
services to bring the product from the producers to the final consumers.
Agricultural marketing is where the producer, the processor, the distributor
and the consumer meet.
Ezirim, A. C et al (2003), defines agricultural
marketing as the exchange of agricultural products and money that are
desired by the consumer and farmer respectively.
Agricultural produce marketing is an integral and crucial part of food
production process in a viable farm enterprise. Agricultural produce
marketing is viewed as the flow of goods and services from the point of
initial farm production to the hands of the ultimate consumer (Adekanye
1988; Kohls and Uhi, 1990; AMA, 1994; Bibagambah, 1996). Onyeabor
(2009) added that agricultural produce marketing depicts a process of
demands and motivation of sellers to distribute food items unto ultimate
consumers at a profit. According to Agbarevo and Obinne (2010)
Agricultural marketing extension is fundamental to agricultural produce
marketing and a process of training the farmers on best ways to acquire farm
inputs and distribute the output to maximize profit. Between the colonial era
of the 1950s and since Nigerian‘s political independence in 1960, successive
government administrations have made concerted efforts to improve
20
marketing system. Specific among these performance improvement efforts of
governments are by way of market liberalization policy and involvement of
measures to encourage free entry and sustain the marketing system. The
question is why have these government efforts in agricultural produce
marketing in Nigeria not yielded the desired results in achieving the desired
contributions of the agricultural sector to the Gross Domestic Products
(GDP)?
In Nigeria, a teeming population of men and women play dynamic roles in
agricultural food production and marketing as their necessary primary
occupations and for economic development. These roles tend to be more in
area of marketing rather than primary production basically because of
scarcity of land and urbanization. Women constitute overwhelming
population of those who are involved in agricultural produce marketing as
against the men who focus more on artisan, subsistent farming and civil
service occupations (ENADEP, 2009). These women are concerned as great
apostles of household nutritional requirement of diets, management and
income generation (Dianco-Adetayo, 2000).
According to Adubi and Jibowo (2006) women are invisible workforce and
the unacknowledged backbone of the family. However, given the increasing
demands for agricultural produce in the diets of most households in Nigeria
and South East area in particular, the marketing situation seems to be low
relative to distribution. Under multi-sectoral approach to food security,
economic empowerment and poverty reduction marketing has challenges to
extension and branding. These challenges of effective agricultural produce
marketing supported by sustainable marketing extension training for different
groups are responsibilities which the Agricultural Development Programme
(ADP)
performs. Agricultural marketers‘ perception of constraints on
21
agricultural produce marketing of raw and processed agricultural produce are
fundamental to the reality of their socio-economic conditions. The desirable
social and economic condition is basic for adjustment and useful challenges
for group participation in extension training for food security and economic
development policy. The socio-economic background of farmers constitute
critical input to extension training needed to improve entrepreneurship skills
among farmers for effective processing, storage and distribution of their farm
produce (Agbarevo and Obinne 2010).
According to Agbarevo and Obinne (2010), low entrepreneurship skills and
poverty among small-scale farmers in Nigeria are attributable to inadequate
marketing extension training, poor distribution process and associated lack of
adoption of other recommended farm practices. What constraints do
agricultural marketers‘
perceive
as
responsible
for
achieving
low
performance targets? What specific lessons could be learned from
agricultural marketers‘ perceived constraints on marketing of agricultural
products in Nigeria that could serve as useful challenges for branding of
agricultural produce. Although agricultural commodities are harder to brand
than manufactured products, there are nevertheless success stories for
developing-country-based agricultural brands.
Agricultural Marketing, rather than production, is going to be the key driver
of the agriculture sector today, thanks to the new market realities posed by
the increasing accent on globalization, liberalization and privatization of the
economy. Market-driven production is an idea whose time has come. With
the gradual shifting of agricultural system from subsistence to commercial
one, there is increasing focus on Agricultural marketing. It is the need of the
time to tune up the Agricultural Marketing System of the country to enable
the farmers to face the new challenges and reap the opportunities as well.
22
Agricultural marketing is a form of marketing that encompasses all goods
and services related to the field of agriculture. All these products directly or
indirectly support the effort to produce and deliver agricultural products from
the farm to the consumer. The range of this type of marketing includes such
varied products as real estate support, equipment used in cultivation and
harvesting, storage facilities for harvested crops, and delivery services that
transport the harvest to consumers. In addition, financial services that make it
possible to secure products necessary for agriculture to function are also
normally included as part of agricultural marketing.
Agricultural
commodities are generic, undifferentiated products that, since they have no
other distinguishing and marketable characteristics, compete with one
another on the basis of price. Commodities contrast sharply with those
products which have been given a trademark or branded in order to
communicate their marketable differences.
Agricultural marketing functions are classified into three groups.
1. The exchange function
2. Physical functions
3. Facilitating functions.
1. The exchange functions.
a. Buying: They are directly associated with negotiating an exchange of
ownership or flow of title between a seller and a prospective buyer Buying
activities include searching for, gathering information about evaluating
alternative products and suppliers and negotiating a purchase agreement.
b. Selling function: Involves identifying and seeking out potential buyers,
determining and seeking prices, negotiating terms of sales and similar
23
activities. The ultimate aim of any seller is to meet its consumer‘s needs.
These farmers can be said to be market oriented when production is
purposely planned to meet specific demands or market opportunities.
Example, a contract farmer who wishes to meet the needs of a food processor
producing sorghum based malted drinks will only grow improved sorghum
seed. It will avoid any input likely to adversely affect the storage and
processing properties of the sorghum and will continually seek new and
better inputs which will add further value to its products in the eyes of the
consumers. (Sparke and Menrad 2009:213).
2. Physical functions
a. Storage: This balances the supply of and demand for agricultural produce.
Agriculture in developing countries like Nigeria is usually seasonal whilst
demand is generally continuous throughout the year. Hence the need for
storage to allow a smooth and uninterrupted flows of product into the market
as far as possible.
b. Transportation and distribution: This is making the products available
where it is needed without adding unreasonably to the overall cost of the
produce Adequate performance of this function requires considerations of
alternative routes of and types of transportation with the view of achieving
timeless, maintaining product quality and minimizing shipping cost.
3. Facilitating function.
a. Standardization: This is concerned with the establishment and
maintenance of uniform measurement of product quality or quantity. This
function simplifies buying and selling as well as reducing marketing costs by
enabling buyers to specify precisely what they want and suppliers to
communicate what they are able and willing to supply with respect to both
24
quality and quantity of product in the absence of standard weights and
measures trade either becomes more expensive to conduct or impossible
altogether. Quality differences in Agricultural produce may be due to
production methods and because of the quality of inputs used.
Technological innovation can also give rise to quality differences. In
addition, a buyer‘s assessment of a product‘s quality is often an expression of
personal preference thus for example, in some markets a small banana is
judged to be in some sense better than a large banana. White sugar is
considered superior to yellow sugar, long stemmed carnations are of higher
quality than short stemmed carnations and white maize is easer to digest than
yellow maize.
b. Financing: in almost any production system, there are inevitable lags
between investing in the necessary raw materials example machinery, seeds,
fertilizer, packaging, flavorings, stocks etc and receiving payments for the
sale of product during this lag periods-some individuals or institution must
finance the investment.
c. Risk bearing: In both the production and marketing of produce, the
possibilities of incurring losses in always present physical risk includes the
destruction and deterioration of the produce through fire excessive heat or
cold, pest, floods, earthquakes, etc. Adverse risks are those of adverse
changes in the value of the produce between the process of production and
consumption. A change in consumer taste can reduce the attractiveness of the
produce and is therefore also a risk. All these risks are borne by those
organizations companies and individuals.
d. Market intelligence: This is the process of collecting, interpreting and
disseminating information relevant to marketing decisions. The role of
25
market intelligence is to reduce the level of risk in decision making. Through
market intelligence, the seller finds out what the customer needs and wants
the alternative is to find out through sales or lack of them.
Marketing
research helps establish what products are right for most appropriate how
best to promote products and what prices are acceptable to the market as with
other marketing functions intelligence gathering can be carried out by the
seller or another party such as government Agency, the ministry of
Agriculture or some other specialist organization. Each of these functions add
value to the product and they require inputs, so they incur cost, a long as the
value added to the product is positive most firms or entrepreneurs will find it
profitable to compete.
2.3
THE CONCEPT OF BRANDING
Branding is one of the most important components of marketing. Branding is
a term used to describe the name, description and design of a product. A
brand represents everything that a product or service means to consumers.
As such, brands are valuable assets to any company or organization and are
therefore powerful assets if carefully developed and managed. Branding
differentiates a company's product from their competitor‘s. Packaging is a
marketing tool used to reflect the brand. A company uses packaging to sell
the product inside. The colours, fonts, descriptions and logo are designed to
drive consumers to buy the product.
The word "brand" is derived from the
word brand meaning "to burn." It refers to the practice of producers burning
their mark (or brand) onto their products. From there, manufacturers quickly
learned to build their brand's identity and personality Proper branding can
result in higher sales of not only one product, but on other products
associated with that brand. A brand is therefore one of the most valuable
elements in an advertising theme, as it demonstrates what the brand owner is
26
able to offer in the marketplace. A label simply identifies a specific product
characteristic pertaining only and precisely to the product itself (such as
origin or composition); whereas a brand is a broader concept that captures a
product‘s characteristics, its reputation, and the accumulated customer
experience with that brand name and symbol that is viewed at the customer‘s
point of purchase. In other words, we consider that a functional brand is more
than simply the creation of an image in the minds of consumers. A brand
represents everything that a product or service means to consumers. (Kotler
P. & Armstrong G., 2012)
The entire focus of a marketing department is to strategize methods to sell the
company's products. Branding and packaging are two of the most effective
ways to do this. Once a brand has been determined, methods are employed to
sell the product. Advertising, the company website and product packaging
must all present a cohesive brand or image. In successful brand campaigns,
customers recognize the company's product packaging and purchase in part
because they identify with the brand.
When conceiving, developing, and managing its portfolio of products, a firm
makes and implements a series of decisions concerning branding for each
item. Branding is an important part of product planning.
"branding" and brand equity have
components of culture and the economy.
become
The brand, and
increasingly important
People have grown weary of
dealing with nameless, faceless, money hungry, corporate entities. The
personal touch will always win out. Product branding has given rise to a
multi-billion dollar industry called advertising.
Brand awareness refers to
customers' ability to recall and recognize the brand under different conditions
and link to the brand name, logo, jingles and so on to certain associations in
memory. It consists of both brand recognition and brand recall. It helps the
27
customers to understand to which product or service category the particular
brand belongs and what products and services are sold under the brand name.
When a company brands a product, they determine its "personality." Creating
a brand that is instantly recognizable and perceived positively is the ultimate
goal. Branding integrates components such as color, style and visual imagery
to distinguish a company's products from the competition. Developing logos,
slogans and tag lines are all ways that marketers communicate a specific
brand. One of the most effective methods of branding is the use of slogans.
Companies often identify a specific characteristic that sets their product apart
from the competition. The slogan becomes a key component in all marketing
efforts.
Branding serves to differentiate a product from its competitors. Brand names
help customers associate given characteristics or attributes with a particular
product and/or supplier and select those which best meet their needs. Buyers
may find, however, that they are asked to pay higher prices for branded
products than for their generic equivalents. In highly competitive markets
there may be a plethora of brands on the market and the customer becomes
confused over the differences, if any, between them. Sellers benefit from
branding in several ways, including having a basis for differentiating their
products and segmenting the market, being able to legally protect unique
product features and providing a means of moving away from price-based
competition. At the same time, sellers can find that marketing branded
products involves higher costs than marketing commodities or generic
products. There is also the danger that products will fail in the market place
and customer‘s confidence in the sponsors of these products can quickly be
eroded when the failure is readily associated with a producer or manufacturer
through branding.
28
According to Kotler, (2003:418), Brand is a name, term, sign, symbol
or design or a combination of these, that identifies the goods and services of
one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of
competitors. Brands are viewed by customers as an important part of a
product and branding adds value to a product.
Thus, customers attach
meanings to brands and this helps them to develop brand relationships.
According to McCarty (1985:380) Brand is a name, term, symbol,
design or a combination of these to identify a product. It includes the use of
brand name, brand mark and trade mark. The brand identifies the product for
the consumer and relates it to brand and product design. Brand identifies the
seller or maker. Under the trademark law, the seller is granted the exclusive
rights to use the brand name in perpetuity. Brands differ from other assets
such as patents and copyrights which have expiry dates.
Branding according to Nebo, (200:185) is the act of identifying a
product or service with a name, a sign, symbol or design or the combination
of them which is intended to distinguish the products or services of one
seller or group of sellers from those of competitors. Branding is of immense
benefits both to the manufacturer and consumer.
Nebo further states that:
1. Branding helps consumer spend less time while shopping. Enormous
time will be spent trying to distinguish one product from the other
products that are not branded.
2. Branding helps consumers to distinguish fakes from the authentic
products.
3. Branding makes it easier for the consumer to trace a product to the
makers so as to make a repeat purchase if satisfied or avoid the
29
product, return the product, tell others not to buy it, or seek redress if
not satisfied.
To the Seller or Manufacturer,
1. Branding makes order processing easier.
2. Products that are not gotten in the right quality or in good conditions
are easily traceable to the supplier or producer.
3. A seller‘s trade mark gives him legal protection against imitators.
4. Branding helps sellers to segment markets
5. Branding also helps in facilitating the introduction of new products or
brands to enable it gain quick popularity
6. Branding also leads to product improvement as no manufacturer
offering branded products will like to introduce inferior or bad
products in the market. A product with a good brand should be too
hard to remember, pronounced or spelt. The brand name should not
connote bad meaning, should be easily registered and legally protected.
The name should also suggest some product benefits.
In the view of Evans and Berman (1990:320) these reasons summarize why
branding is important:1. Product Identification is eased. A customer can order a product by
right instead of description.
2. Customers are assumed that a good or service has a certain level of
quality and that they will obtain comparable quality if the same
brand is ordered from the firm responsible for the brand as known.
The producer of unbranded items cannot be directly identified.
30
3. Price comparisons are reduced when customers perceive distinct
brands. This is especially true when special characteristics are at
combusted to different brands.
4. A firm is able to advertise its products and associate each brand and
its characteristics in the buyer‘s mind. This aids the consumer in
forming a brand image, which is the perception a person has of a
particular brands.
5. Product prestige is increased as social visibility becomes
meaningful.
6. Consumers feel less risk when purchasing a brand they are familiar
with.
7. A brand may be used to sell an entire line of product.
8. A brand may be used to enter a new product category.
9. Co-operation from distribution intermediaries is greater for well –
known brands.
He went further to say that in the past, producers and intermediaries of
agricultural products sold their products out of barrels, bins and cases,
without any supplier identification. Buyers depended on the seller‘s integrity.
The earliest signs of branding were the medieval guilds efforts to require
crafts people to put trademarks on their product themselves, and consumers
against inferior quality (generic branding). Brands can increase the demand
for a product by persuading consumers to associate more value – or higher
quality – with the product. Ceteris paribus, consumers are willing to
purchase more of a product that they perceive to be of higher quality or will
pay more for it compared to competing products of lower quality.
It should be noted that if a company treats a brand only as a name, it misses
the point. The branding challenge is to develop a deep set of positive
31
associations for the brand. Branding is a major issue in product strategy. On
one hand, developing a branded product requires a great deal of long term
investment. On the other hand, manufacturers eventually learn that market
powers lie with building their own brands as the brand name continues to
command loyalty among customers.
There has been little consideration of agricultural and horticultural products
in the branding literature. However, one author who has attempted to bridge
the gap between agricultural products and main stream marketing theory is
Bowbrick (1992). Within agricultural and horticultural products branding
seems to include identifying a product with various types of labels (e.g.
region of origin, variety) to differentiate products. Bowbrick (1992)
acknowledges this characteristic and suggests that a brand is a label attached
to products from a specific manufacturer, distributor, country of origin, or
retailer with the aim being to "convey information on, or persuade the
consumer about; the quality, reliability, social status, value for money or
safety of a purchase" (page 29).
Branding strategies have become an accepted part of marketing activity and it
is the norm for manufactured and processed food products to be offered to
consumers as branded products.
However, as any vigilant consumer would have noticed, there is still a wide
range of agricultural products that remains unbranded. Agricultural and
horticultural products are often relatively unprocessed and do not have clear
brands associated with producers or suppliers. It has become common to find
generic brands associated with particular supply regions or varieties of
products, but these are normally developed by groups of suppliers, or are
merely used as labels to identify particular attributes of the products. In
attempting to explore such issues it is often assumed that the lack of such
32
activity is a result of the small firms that exist in the industry, or simply
because of the lack of marketing knowledge amongst producers.
Experts believe that branding a country‘s agricultural produce will go a long
way to erase the negative perception the Western world has against
agricultural products coming in from developing countries. Although
agricultural commodities are harder to brand than manufactured products,
there are
nevertheless success stories for developing-country-based
agricultural brands.
Take for instance, a developing country like Brazil
which has one of the most advanced agricultural branding programs than any
developing economy in this world. Through its vigorous branding
programmes, the country has been able to promote its coffee industry which
has contributed positively, not only to the nation‘s economy but its image as
well. Nigeria could draw great lessons from branding acumen of Brazil to its
agricultural products since a well-known, well-branded agricultural product
can do a great deal to help build a nation's brand. The development of
branding and marketing strategies to promote Nigeria‘s agricultural products
internationally is therefore important.
The successes in branding the country‘s agricultural sector can be said began
decades ago with the cash crop Cocoa. Even though Nigeria remains one of
the world‘s largest cocoa producers, Nigerian cocoa beans can sell at a
significant premium on the London and New York futures markets, owing to
their high quality. However, Cocoa is not the only crop which can contribute
fiscally to the country‘s economy. Our starchy staples such as cassava, yam
and plantain which according to the Ministry of Agriculture, the country is
self-sufficient can for instance contribute significantly to the economy if they
are branded well to attract both regional and global consumers. Building
these products into world class brands means we have to place more
33
emphasis on adding value to these raw products and their packaging to be
accepted and patronized by consumers.
Although the lack of branding strategies for agricultural products has been
commented on by recent researchers (e.g. Png and Reitman, 1995), work in
this area is limited. In considering this problem it becomes necessary to
analyze the most general conditions in which branded products might be used
as a part of a successful marketing strategy. This involves understanding both
the reasons why consumers might value brands, and the conditions under
which producers would find it profitable to invest in brand development.
2.4
BRANDING STRATEGY DECISION
In today‘s market, the greatest rewards will flow into the hands of
those who honestly and rigorously dedicate themselves to building strong
brand (Evans & Berman, 1990:320).
When conceiving, developing and
managing its products, a firm needs to make and enact a variety of decisions
regarding the branding strategy to use for each of its product.
According to Kotler (2003:425), the first decision is whether the company
should develop a brand name for a product. He went further to say that in the
past, producers and intermediaries sold their products without any supplier
identification.
Brand value, or equity is influenced by the consumers‘
perceptions of the brand and their ability and willingness to purchase.
Agricultural marketers have the control to develop marketing strategies to
position the brand and to increase brand equity. There are four branding
decisions a firm must undertake.
There involve co-operate symbols,
branding philosophy, choosing a brand name and using trademarks.
The creation of a national or country brand has also been suggested as a
strategy that can enhance the export potential of Nigerian agricultural
34
products, and government policy initiatives have embraced such a strategy.
Hence, a serious examination of the potential benefits of a country branding
strategy, the pitfalls to avoid in its establishment, and the institutional
arrangements that are needed for successful implementation of a branding
initiative is warranted. A country brand on a food or agricultural product is
intended to signal specific quality characteristics to consumers, which have
been promoted as embodied in the country‘s products. A country branding
strategy for agricultural exports may be an effective way to promote a
country‘s products on the international market. Using a brand logo can signal
to consumers their past experiences with products bearing the brand,
marketing efforts aimed at promoting branded products, and their perceptions
of a country and its citizens. Using a brand rather than a country-of-origin
label allows a product image to be created and conveyed that goes beyond
merely representing the origins of the product. A country brand will only be
successful facing competition from other countries in the international
marketplace if its claims are credible and unique. If the claims made by the
brand are not unique, it is likely that other countries will copy the strategy
and erode any gains made by branding country‘s exporters. Initial success of
the brand will deteriorate if consumers‘ expectations are not met or other
countries imitate the claims made by the brand.
Manufacturers who decide to brand their product must choose which brand
name to use. Four strategies are available. Once a company decides on its
brand name strategy, it faces the task of choosing a specific brand name
a. Individual Brand Names: This is the strategy whereby a company uses
separate brand name for each product.
products are of varying
This is necessary when its
quality or type. This is used to encourage
35
competition within the company because each brand is managed by a
different group within the firm.
b. Blanket Family Names: This is a strategy whereby a manufacturers of
more than one product decisions to use the same brand name for several
products.
c. Several Family Names for all Products: This is also called MultiBrand. This is where companies often introduce additional brand in the
same product category. Multi-brand offers a way to establish different
features and appeal to different buying motives. It also allows a company
to lock up more reseller shelf space. Or the company may want to protect
its major brand by setting fighter brands.
d. Corporate Name Combined with Individual Product Names: This is a
situation where the manufacturer uses both the company brand name and
individual brand name on his or her products.
The company name
legitimizes and the individual name individualizes the product once a
manufacturer decides on its brand name strategy. It faces the task of
choosing a specific brand name. The manufacturer could choose the name
of a person like Dangote sugar, location like Adani rice, Abakaliki Rice,
Benue yam, Kano Groundnuts, etc, quality, lifestyle or an artificial name.
According to Sanusi (2000:84), a good brand name should possess certain
features that will make it serve the purpose for which is intended. Such
features have been variously referred to as the qualities of a brand name and
they include. In order words, any of the above names chosen must possess
these qualities:i.
It should be easy to spell, pronounce, recognize and
remembered.
ii.
It should suggest something about the product‘s benefits.
36
iii.
It should be attractive. That is, it should not have any bearing
with any other brand in the market.
iv.
It should not carry poor meaning in other countries and
languages.
v.
It should suggest the product or service category
vi.
It should suggest the product quality
Normally, companies choose name by generating a list of possible names,
debating their merits, eliminating all but a few, testing them with target
consumers and making a final choice.
e.
Co brands: A rising phenomena is the emergence of co branding also
called dual branding in which two or more well known brands are combined
in an offer. Each brand sponsor expects that the other brand name will
strengthen preference or purchase intention. Co branding takes a variety of
forms. Branding is expensive and time consuming and it can make or break a
product. The most valuable brands have a brand equity that is considered an
important asset. In thinking about brand strategy, the farmers must decide
whether or not to brand. The best brand name suggests something about the
product‘s qualities that is obtainable.
In Nigeria, farmers use either a
person‘s name or company‘s name; but mainly location brand name is
usually used to differentiate identity and position farm produce in Nigeria.
For instance, Ugbawka rice, Okigwe cashew, Kaduna ginger, Nassarawa
sesame, Abakaliki rice, Ebony rice. Benue yam, etc. Sometimes, quality
attributes may be used as branding strategy in Agricultural marketing in
Nigeria.
Marketing of agricultural products becomes more critical than production
because any sharp drop on price can cancel out all the bumper harvest. At
harvest time, if all produce are offered for sale, the market supply will be
37
higher than the demand and the resultant effect will be a decrease in prices.
After the harvest, the market supply of the farm produce decreases and the
prices rises again. The introduction of cold storage facilities has helped to
moderate prices of agricultural produce.
This shows that prices of
agricultural produce can be moderated through marketing activities like
effective
branding
strategies
or
decision;
off
season
production;
transportation and feeding surplus produce to livestock. Some farmers prefer
to plan some crops before or after the main season in order to take advantage
of high off season prices.
According to Sexton (2004), price is the amount of money charged for a
product or service. Pricing is much more of an uncontrollable variable for
the agricultural producers especially in the short run. Agricultural producers
come in small operating units, produce homogeneous products and cannot
influence supply situation in the face of changing demand in the short run
(Kotler, 2001).
In the long run, these producers can influence price by
reducing the acreage cultivated. Short run influence on price can be achieved
only through uneconomic means of destroying the product (Pete, 2003).
Storage for hoarding purposes to raise price temporarily does not usually
work or it achieves only a limited effect on price because of the cost of
storage which included the cost incurred with loss through perishing or
destruction of the products by pests and other elements.
Sometimes, the government steps in to stabilize prices to encourage
production by buying up excess production at a price set to yield the
producers reasonable profit and good return on investment. Government‘s
effort at prices stabilization in Nigeria includes the purchase of abundant
produce not necessarily at a good price for the farmer (Ade, 1979). Other
government action to influence price is through the manipulation of
38
production level by paying farmers for not growing certain crops or raising
certain animals. While producers in the agricultural sector appear to be price
takers, the middlemen have considerable influence on the price of the product
sold to consumers. The development of farmer co-operatives increased the
bargaining power of farmers now acting in consort with one another in a
highly organized situation to influencing prices is also attributed to their
control of large portion of the supply of the products. Therefore, prices are
arrived at through negotiations and sales by samples or inspection of goods
and through bids under auctioning conditions. Furthermore, the pricing of
branded yam, garri, rice, beans, etc, in Nigeria is actually determined through
the market forces of demand and supply. This means the interaction between
the producers or farmers, dealers or the middlemen is through haggling.
There is no fixed price or predetermined prices for the farm products.
Different consumers may pay different prices for the same quality of a
particular item. In essence, buyers pay a price to receive a bundle of utility in
an exchange process. When setting price, it is usually equated with the value
or worth of the product and if the two did not match, then exchange does not
happen and potential satisfaction is not realized. Price has operated as a
major determinant of buyer‘s choice (Andy, 1988). Price is the only element
in the marketing mix that procures revue, other elements represent cost. In a
natural Nigerian society, branded produce makes consumers believe that the
product has high quality which attracts higher prices as is obtainable in the
beans category where the iron beans is a little more expensive than the others.
Unbranded farm produce are often priced lower because it is believed to be
of low quality. For profitability, farmers or marketers should be rational in
fixing prices of their commodities.
39
2.4.1 Brand Sponsor Decision
A manufacturer has several options with respect to brand sponsorship. The
product may be launched as a manufacturers brand or natural brand, private
or distributor brands and licensed brand name.
A manufacturer‘s brand
identifies the producer with the product at the point of purchase.
The
manufacturer initiates branding and becomes involved in the distribution,
promotion and sometimes pricing decisions.
Private brand is owned and controlled by a wholesaler or retailer rather than
by the manufacturer. In the use of private brand, the manufacturers are not
identified on the products hence decision on private branding is mutually
made between the manufacturer and the dealer. (Sanusi, 2000:83). Licensed
brand is when the manufacturer produces some output under its name and
some under reseller labels. However, some companies license names or
symbols previously created by other manufacturers, names of well known
celebrities, characters from popular movies and books which they pay for,
because it can provide an instant and proven brand name.
2.4.2 Branding Decision for Effective Agricultural Marketing in
Relations to Price and Profitability
A brand is essentially a seller‘s or manufacturer‘s promise to deliver a
specific set of features, benefits and services consistently to the buyers. The
best brands convey a warranty of quality. But a brand is even a more
complex symbol. It convey up to six levels of meaning:
1. Attributes: A brand brings to mind certain attributes example, ―Dangote‖
suggest expensive high quality, durable and high prestige products.
2. Benefits: Attributes must be translated into functional and emotional
benefits.
40
3. Values: the brand also says something about the producer‘s value.
4. Culture: the brand may represent a certain culture.
5. Personality: the brand can project a certain personality.
6. User: the brand suggests the kind of consumer who buys or uses the
product.
The first decision is whether the company should develop a brand name for
its product in the past, most products went unbranded, producers and
manufacturers sold their goods out of identification. Buyers depended on the
seller‘s Integrity. The initial decision is whether to brand or not. Historically,
most unprocessed agricultural outputs have been sold as generic products i.e.
unbranded. Agricultural product is frequently marketed as a commodity
where within particular grade brands a product from one source is considered
identical to that from another source. The earliest signs of branding were the
medieval guilds effort to require crafts people to put and consumers against
interior quality. Today, branding is such a strong force that hardly anything
goes unbranded. Salt is packaged in distinctive manufacturer‘s containers
oranges are stamped with grower‘s names. In an analysis of ―farmer owned
brands‖, Hayes et al. (2004) suggest that the only way to prevent supernormal
profits from being eroded by expansion and entry is to limit the number of
products sold using the brand. Recall that differentiation occurs when brand
equity is sufficient to add quality attributes to the branded product that other
products do not contain if a country brand was applied to food and this
enhanced consumers‘ perceptions.
Fresh food products-such as chicken, vegetables and fish are increasingly
sold under strongly advertised brand names. In some cases, there has been a
return to ―no branding‖ of certain staple consumer goods. Some agric
41
produce are unbranded, plainly packaged, less expensive versions of produce
such as spaghetti, maize and canned peaches. They offer standard or lower
quality at a price that may be as much as 20 percent to 40 percent lower than
nationally advertised brand and 10 percent to 20 percent lower than retailer
private label brands. The lower price is made possible by lower quality
ingredients, lower cost labelling and packaging and animal advertising
(Kotler 2009: 277).
The relatively low level of use of brands in agricultural and horticultural
marketing is explained by the biologically variable nature of production, and
the consequent inability of producers to deliver a product which is consistent
with respect to the attributes of importance to consumers. Branding can add
value to a product and is, therefore, an important aspect of product
management. For example, most consumers would perceive Oluji Cocoa
brand as a quality product from a reliable company; but the same Cocoa in an
unmarked packet is unlikely to gain the same level of consumer confidence.
Branding can also provide the basis for non-price competition.
Why then do sellers brand their products when doing so clearly involves
costs? Branding gives sellers some advantages which had already been
discussed. Consumer brands are more price sensitive. There is nothing more
quality equivalence as competing manufacturers and national retailers copy
and duplicate the qualities of the best brands. The continuous barrage of
coupons and special offers has trained a generation of shoppers to buy on
price. The fact that companies have reduced advertising to 30 percent of
their total promotion budget has weakened their brand equity. The endless
stream of brand extensions and line extensions has blurred brand identity and
led to a confusing amount of product proliferation. Manufacturers have
reacted by spending substantial amounts of money on consumer direct
42
advertising and promotion to maintain strong brand preference. Sometimes,
mass distributors pressure manufacturer to put more money into trade
allowances and deals if they want adequate shelf space. Once manufacturers
start giving in, they have less to spend on advertising and consumer
promotion, and their brand leadership starts spiralling down.
2.4.3 Branding for Effective and Efficient Distribution of Agricultural
Produce in Nigeria.
A branding strategy is often employed in the marketing of
manufactured or processed food products but many other agricultural and
food products have comparatively lower levels of branding. The distribution
of agricultural produce has to do with the evacuation of farm products from
the points of production to the points of consumption.
In Agricultural
marketing, a sale cannot be made if the products cannot reach the market
place. Farm produce stored at the farm gate are of little value to the farm
produce by virtue of the transport, storage, packing and handling services
performed. A good physical distribution system must serve the consumer‘s
need satisfactorily on a continuous basis. It must possess the ability to move,
handle and store various sized packages of agricultural produce. It must be
flexible enough to supply both domestic and world markets. The acute need
for middlemen in the distribution structure is influenced by the small,
scattered production units located away from major centers‘ of demand.
Other influences on distribution are the highly atomized nature of the
household consumer market and the need for standardized, graded and
branded products by the industrial users engaged in the processing of
agricultural products and the homogenous nature of agricultural products.
Distribution is the task involved in planning, implementing and controlling
the physical flow of materials, final foods and related information from
43
points of origin to points of consumption to meet consumer requirement at a
profit (Abbey, 2004). Nigeria enjoys no single central terminal market for
products. There are thus, as many terminal markets as there are regional
markets. The distribution channel members are first the assemblers. The
produce are moved to regional or central markets depending on the level of
organization of wholesale markets for concentration.
The Nigerian
experience is that there are no specialized national wholesale market
locations where all goods from different locations are sold. However, given
regional specialization in agricultural production, a wholesaler in each
general market in each region specializes in selling specific commodities.
Thus, all wholesalers from different parts go to purchase from the regional
markets.
The latter are general markets because of the existence of
wholesaling and retailing activities side by side these markets.
2.4.4 Types of Middlemen in the Marketing of Agricultural Products
Assemblers:
These are merchant wholesalers who may reside in the
immediate production area (farm) and operate in only one local market where
production quantity is enough to sustain his operation.
Assemblers also
constitute representatives of middlemen in regional markets. Independent
wholesalers and Farm-owned Cooperative Marketing Associations in other
words Assemblers, perform the function of monetizing the Produce of local
farmers, grading, branding, and packaging and strong them for the next stage
in distribution of course the scope of the function performed depends on the
resources of the whole sales-in our environment, regional wholesalers on
their representatives perform much of the assembling functions because they
have ready markets for their products which local assemblers may not have.
Commission men:
The commission men are an agent important in the
marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables, grains and Livestock in advanced
44
economies. They function to find a market for goods supplied by the local
assemblers to the central markets (Stanton, 1984). Their services were made
necessary in the past because the local assemblers were ignorant of market
conditions in the regional markets given the poor market condition in the area
of prices, demand and supply conditions. The commission men as agent do
not take little to the goods they sell on behalf of assemblers and are paid
commission for their services (Porter 2000)
Buying agents: Abound in the past. In agricultural marketing or marketing
or agricultural products, for palm produces, grains and other cash crops
buying for community
board now abolished.
Agents still function
nowadays, to facilitate the binning of the producers and or local assemblers
together with wholesalers from regional markets and farmer co-operative
societies these agents perform functions that are necessary for the sale of the
local assemblers or producers‘ goods at their location. These agents in the
marketing of Agricultural products in our environment are diminished by
their sheds practices often enhanced by their ability to speak the local
language.
Merchant wholesalers: These categories of wholesalers buy commodities on
their own account. The merchant wholesalers operate in the less perishable
end of agriculture producer and source the product either individually or in
groups of independent wholesalers of through agents throughout the length
and breadth of the nation. They maintain storage facilities in the public
warehouses located in the markets where they function. These are inadequate
and lack the necessary facilities to safeguard the products against parts
although these goods are shipped in cur load quantities often accumulated
from several whole sales.
45
Retailers: Retailers are very important in the distribution system of
agricultural products especially in circumstances of very inadequate
infrastructure for transporting, storing, and warehousing products (Konte,
1999) organized retailing outfits, such as grocery stores and equivalent
department in department stores handle the retailing it agricultural produce.
2.5
BRANDING AS A STRATEGIC TOOL FOR BRAND EQUITY
LOYALTY AND POSITIONING IN THE CONSUMER BUYING
DECISION
Consumer behaviour may be defined in choosing between alternators;
procuring and using products or services. The behaviour of consumers is the
product of two broad categories of influence namely, endogenous factors (i.e.
those internal to the individual) and exogenous factors (i.e. those external to
the individual).
a) Endogenous Factors:
i. Needs and motives is when an individual recognizes that he or she has
a need, this act to trigger a motivated state.
ii. Preceptors: - These are the process by which an individual selects,
organized and interprets information inputs to create a meaningful
picture of the world.
iii. Learning processes: - much of human behaviors are learned and the
evidence of learning is a change in a person‘s behaviors as a result
of expense.
iv. Attitudes: - These are a learned predisposition to respond in a
consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a
given.
v. Personality type:- Like attitudes, personality types (e.g. self-confident,
neurons, introvert extrovert , ambitions‘ etc) save to bring about a
46
consistency in the behaviors of an individual with respect of his/her
environment
vi. Self image: - it is a fusion of how a person actually is.
b) Exogenous Factors:i. Culture: It is defined as a complex of values ideas, attitudes and other
meaningful symbols created by people to shape human behavior
and the artifacts from one generation to the next.
ii. Social class or status:- Are group of people based on incomes
occupation, education and lifestyle
iii. Reference Groups: The group(s) to which a person belongs exerts an
influence upon the behavior, beliefs and attitudes of members by
communicating norms and expectations about the roles they are to
assume.
iv. Family Members: It is another group and offer forms a decision
making unit with respect to house hold purchases.
2.5.1 The Consumer Buying Decision Process
The consumer buying decision process involves 5 stages:
1. Problem and Need Recognition: The buying process begins with a
recognition on the part of an individual or recognition that they have a
problem or need.
For instance, farmers recognize that he/she is
approaching a new season and requires seed. The consumers once they
recognize their needs, branding makes it easier for them to best locate
products that best satisfy these needs.
2. Information Search: Information gathering may be passive or active.
An individual may be more attentive to a recognized solution or a
given need. In other words, consumers may want to repeat purchase of
47
a particular produce that best satisfies his need. If the farmers do not
take time to brand their produce, their competitors may capitalize on
this stage in the consumer‘s buying decision to retain consumers. For
this reason, the farmers are advised to use brand names that are simple
and easy to remember.
3. Evaluation of Alternatives: This does not only differ from customer to
prospective customers but the individual will also adopt different
process in accordance with the situation. It is likely that when making
judgments, customers will focus on those product attributes and
features that ate most relevant to their needs at a given point in time.
So farmers at every point should be careful about the features or
symbols embedded in their brand strategy so as not to scare or repel
their customers.
4. Purchase decision: At this stage, the prospective customer will arrive
at a judgment about his or her preference among the evoked set and
have formed purchase intention. The consumer‘s decision will depend
on how attractive; captivating a farmer‘s produce is compared to
competitors.
5. Post purchase behavior: Having procured the product, the consumer
will experience either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with his/her
purchase which is largely a function of the buyer‘s expectations of the
product and the product‘s perceived performance. If the product is
properly branded, it will be easier for the consumer to purchase more
or make useful observations.
48
2.6
BRANDING
FOR
EFFECTIVE
SEGMENTATION
OF
AGRICULTURAL MARKETS
Market segments are based on customer or product characteristics. Typical
product characteristics are different sizes, prices and colours whereas
customer‘s characteristics may be age, sex, income, geographical location,
personality and produce usage. All these are forms of product branding.
Every branded produce has its own market. Once the market has been
segmented, a farmer must decide which of these segments it can profitably
serve and the main strategic approaches adopted in this are:
1. Concentrated Marketing:
The farmer concentrates on serving a
single market segment. This is also known as niche marketing. This
can be a high risk strategy since the farmers are vulnerable without
some degree of diversification as niche markets can quickly disappear.
2. Differentiated Marketing: Here, farmers elect to serve two or more
of the market segments identified.
3. Undifferentiated Marketing: Here farmers seek to attract many
buyers as possible with a single marketing mix. Some farmers have
been very successful with this simple formula but it becomes
increasing difficult to sustain market position and share as the level of
competition becomes intense.
2.7
SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW
Marketing is simultaneously an old and new profession. It is old in the
sense that since the beginning of man, exchange or trade has been in
existence. Right from the time of barter, marketing has been in existence. It
has always been through the instrumentality of marketing that consumer
49
satisfaction was ensured prior to the introduction of barter system (Adirika,
Ebue and Nnolim 2001). The advent of barter coupled with the concept of
division of labour and ensuring specialization gave rise to the production of
surplus. People started making more than they needed of certain products. So
trade (exchange) which is the heart of marketing became inevitable.
Marketing can be defined as the commercial functions involved in
transferring goods from producer to consumer. Marketing is not just the final
transaction of receiving a check. The acts of buying supplies, renting
equipment, paying labor, advertising, processing and selling are all part of a
marketing plan. Marketing should begin as the first ideas for an enterprise
start to bubble. Some say marketing is everything a business does, that it is
the most important aspect of any business, and the only action that results in
revenue.
Agriculture is the principal source of food and livelihood in Nigeria, and
employs nearly three-quarters of the nation‘s workforce. Over the past two
decades, agricultural yields have stayed the same or declined. There has been
a recent increase in agricultural productivity which is derived from expanded
planting areas for staple crops than from strategic marketing plan. Increasing
and sustaining agricultural productivity should be a critical component of
programs that seek to reduce poverty and attain food security in Nigeria
Agriculture is the biggest single industry in developing countries.
It is not
an overstatement to assert that the growth and development of any nation
depend, to a large extent, on the development of agriculture. Agriculture is
generally believed to propel economic growth and facilitate the achievement
of structural transformation and diversification of economies. It empowers a
country to fully utilize its factor endowments and thus reduces dependence
on the oil for sustenance.
50
In order to ensure agricultural productivity, it is recommended that strategic
agricultural marketing program be made a critical component of the
agricultural policy in Nigeria.
Without doubt, agriculture remains the
leading non-oil sector of the Nigerian economy supporting about 60 percent
of the population and providing nearly 70% of the non-petroleum export.
Nigeria‘s agricultural scene has been dominated by peasant farmers
characterized by the use of traditional hand tools, unimproved planning,
applying little or no fertilizer or other modern inputs and poor marketing.
Despite the importance of this sector, myriads problems still exist, plaguing
it. These problems range from inefficient integration of inputs, farm
production and products processing to preservation and marketing.
The average Nigerian farmer faces a number of problems ranging from
natural resource problems such as land, water, labour and management to
problem of farm capital in terms of physical, mechanical, chemical,
biological and financial bottlenecks. There is also the issue of institutional
ineffectiveness found especially in government institutions. Inefficient
integration of inputs, farm production and products processing in rural
agribusiness is another challenging problem. It is increasingly evident that
improved agricultural development and growth can offer a pathway from
poverty. Nigeria‘s agricultural policies have been inconsistent, uncoordinated
and ad hoc. Such agricultural policies have limited the full realization of the
sector‘s potential. A paradigm shift towards formulating sound marketing
strategies is needed to promote a more equitable and environmentally
sustainable growth in the agricultural sector. The recent food price increase
has made this paradigm shift even more important. This shift has brought
about the new Nigerian agricultural policy in Nigeria.
51
Initially, exchange process was a simple one as emphasis was laid on the
production of basic products. Marketing started evolving in earnest when
small producers began to manufacture their goods in large quantities in
anticipation of future orders. Middlemen with their institutionalized channel
then appeared on stage to facilitate the buying and selling with the resultant
increase in output. The desired impetus was given to marketing by the
industrial revolution which brought with it mechanization and consequent
search for mass market. Adirika (1990:3) defined marketing as all important
set of creative human activity, aimed at identifying, anticipating and
satisfying human needs and wants through exchange as efficiently and as
effectively as possible.
This implies that marketing is a social and
managerial process whereby individuals and groups obtain what they need
and want through creating and exchanging products and value with others
(Kotler and Armstrong, 2001).
According to McCarthy & Perreault (2000), branding is the use of a name,
term, symbol or design or a combination of these to identify a product, In
addition, it is the use of a distinctive name and mark on a product to
differentiate it from similar competitive products. It is therefore a major tool
used by marketers to distinguish their products from competitor‘s product.
(Sanusi, 2000:80).
Many products in the market are branded not only to differentiate such
products in the market in terms of quality, quantity or genuineness, but also
in terms of brand loyalty. Branding equally has psychological inducement to
buy. In the general sense, branding is a feature, which a marketer can alter to
suit the market situation in which a company finds itself. The most
fundamental step in branding a product is to associate it with a distinctive
name, symbol or logo in keeping with the image marketers hope to convey.
52
For example, an outdoor clothing brand could use a logo incorporating
mountains and forests. Sometimes a brand name can be legally registered or
trademarked with the federal government so that no competitor may copy it.
Once established, the brand's identity is prominently featured in product
design and promotion to reinforce the image and help consumers find the
brand in a crowded marketplace.
In his own contribution, Stanton (1981: 195) looked at a brand as a name,
term, symbol or special design or some combination of these elements that is
intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or a group of sellers.
In other words, branding give sellers several advantages that help to build
brand quality.
According to Arens (2002:183), Branding refers to the fundamental
differentiation devise for all products; it includes, name, words, symbols, or
designs that identifies the product and its source and distinguishes it from
competing products. Besides, Udeagha (1985:130) is of the opinion that,
branding a product means identifying it with a name or symbol or a sign. A
brand name is therefore given to a product to distinguish it from other
products. Branding is of immense value to both sellers and buyers.
According to Kotler (2003:418), a brand is a complex symbol that can
convey up to six levels of meaning; attributes, benefits, values, culture,
personality and uses. Successful brands are those which create this image or
personality by encouraging consumers to perceive the attributes they aspire to
as being strongly associated with the brand. The personality of the brand is a
function of its rational characteristics, but this has to be augmented and
communicated to consumers through advertising, design, packaging and
effective distribution and display. (Baker,1994:472).
53
American Marketing Association defines a brand as a name, term, sign,
symbol or design or a combination of them intended to identify the goods or
services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those
of competitors.
Therefore, the basic purpose of branding is to fix the
manufacturer‘s identity to a product it offers to the consumer.
Schwartz (1992) views branding as ―the practice of identifying a product or
line of products by a special name or symbol.
Such a function, he
maintained can be executed by either producers or middlemen. According to
Schwartz, two basic goods prompt manufacturers to brand their products;
they include product quality and supply. Branding is one of the elements in
the marketing functions which play a significant role in the firm‘s effort to
continue in business. Adibe (1991) stated that the use of brand name gives
status to manufacturers especially if the brand is an expensive one.
Furthermore, it is clear that effective use of branding becomes imperative in
the marketing of agricultural products in order to avoid adulteration of the
products. This is because weak brands mean weak profits. Agricultural
producers should therefore carefully weigh the advantages of branding their
products, keeping in view their goals, environment and resources before
deciding which course to follow.
Marketing is of various dimensions. Agricultural marketing is one of such
dimension.
Agricultural marketing is the performance of all business
activities involved in the flow of agricultural goods and services from the
point of production until they are in the hands of the ultimate consumers.
Agricultural marketing also includes the establishment of linkage directly or
through intermediaries between producers and consumers, the exchange of
the title in the commodity and its physical handling, assembly, storage,
grading, processing, transportation and distribution through various
54
transactional stages.
Effective agricultural marketing is important to
developing countries. Agricultural marketing is defined as all those business
activities involved in the movements of agricultural produce from areas of
production to areas of consumption. This reflects on all those activities and
functions that are done to ensure that the produce reaches the market where it
is sold for consumption or use.
Agriculture refers to the art and science of the land for the purpose of
growing food stuff for both humans and animal consumption (Hopkins
1978). These Agricultural activities range from farming through forestry,
animal husbandry to fishing. Man‘s earliest economic engagement
historically was in the form of Agriculture - gathering fruits and hunting
games. One could say that both marketing and agriculture is a Siamese twin.
They are really as old as man‘s existence. This was because man could never
survive without food through farming and he could not have produced
everything he needed alone; therefore, he had to exchange what he has with
what he does not have. Therefore, man then produced little to an atomized
market at a subsistence level because of the use of crude implements - hoe
and cutlasses. As stated before, marketing evolved with barter which means
the exchange of goods and services for other goods and services without the
use of money (Konz, 1989).
Darrah (1997:102) stated that many agricultural products are never
considered, or even noticed, unless special efforts are exerted through
branding and packaging. The question often asked is why some producers
brand their products while other does not. The answer would rely on the
method that the producers decide to use to commercialize their product as
well as what the character of the brand is conceived to accomplish in the
process.
55
Taking agriculture as a business and combining it with marketing results into
agricultural marketing. In this study, agriculture marketing is primarily
concerned with government policies towards distribution and processing of
farm produce, thus a policy subject concerned with government intervention
(Bateman, 1976). It is also the performance of all business activities that
direct the flow of goods and services from the point of initial agricultural
production till they reach the ultimate consumer or user (Extension Guide,
No. 17). It has to be noted here that farmers apply marketing concept in their
production plan, because they have to meet the needs of the consumers.
These definitions of agricultural marketing recognize the functions of the
middlemen as the produce do not in most cases, pass directly from the farmer
to the consumers. Thus the functions of middlemen – buying and selling,
transportation, processing, financial risk taking, information gathering and
dissemination, as well as promotion, standardizing, grading and sorting,
packaging, etc play important roles in agricultural business.
56
REFERENCES
Agbarevo, M.N.B; and C.P.O Obinne; (2010). Agricultural Marketing
Extension; Elements of Rural Sociology and Agricultural Extension;
Uwani, Enugu, Leo Publishers; pp.190-198.
Adekanye, T, (1988). Reading in Agricultural Economic; London; Longman
Group Ltd.
Adesina, A. A. and J. Baidu-Forson (1995), ―Farmers‘ Perceptions and
Adoption of New Agricultural Technology: Evidence from Burkina
Faso and Guinea‖, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 13: 1-9
Adubi, K.O; and A.A. Jibowo; (2006). Perception of Women on their role
Performance and the Relevance in Promoting Rural Development in
Osun State, Nigeria; Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology; .6, 1& 2; pp
49-54
Anyaogu, P. M and Uduji, J. I., (2012), Marketing Communications: Theory
and Practice, Enugu, Educational Networks Development Limited.
Bibagambah, J.R; (1996). Marketing of Small holder Crops in Uganda;
Kampala — Uganda. Fountain Publishers Ltd; pp.64-69
Bowbrick, P. (1992), The Economics of Quality, Grades and Brands,
Routledge Publishers.
Crawford, I. M. (1997). Agricultural and Food Marketing Management,
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
chapter 12.
Darrah, L. B. (1997), Food Marketing, New York: Ronald Press Company.
ENADEP; (2009). ―Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme;
Annual Report; 36pp.
Evans J.R. and Berman B. (1990), Marketing: Macmillan Publishing
Company, New York.
Ezirim, A. C. et al (2003), Dynamics of Agricultural and Food Marketing in
Nigeria: Port Harcourt, Horizon Concepts.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing Management: Twelfth
Edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Kotler, P and Armstrong G. (2012), Principles of Marketing: Essex,
England, Pearson Education Limited.
57
.Kohls, R. L. and Uhl, J. N. 2002. Marketing of Agricultural Products: Ninth
Edition. Prentice Hall.
McCarthy J. E. (1984), Basic Marketing: 8th Edition, Illinios, USA, Richard
Irwin Inc.
Nebo O. N. (2000), Principles of Modern Marketing: Enugu, Precious and
Queen Nigeria Limited.
Onyeabor, E. N; (2009). Marketing and Distribution Channels; Agricultural
Marketing for Developing Economies; Enugu, John Jacob‘s Classic
Publishers Ltd; pp.14-25.
Perreault, W.D., and McCarthy, E. J. (2002), Basic Marketing: A Global
Managerial Approach, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Png, I. and Reitman, D. (1995), Why Are Some Products Branded And
Others Not? Journal of Law and Economics, Volume 38, April, pages
207-224.
Udeagha, A. 0. (1995), Principles and Processes of Marketing, Enugu:
J.T.C. Publishers.
Uduji, J. I. (2012), Advertising Management, Enugu: His Glory Publications.
Uduji, J. I. (2012), Public Relations Management, Enugu: His Glory
Publications.
Sparke, K. and K. Menrad (2009), ―Cross-European and functional foodRelated consumer segmentation for new product development‖,
Journal of Food Product Marketing, 15: 213-230.
Suffork R. and Stapleton J. (1995), Marketing Clay, The Chance.
Urde, N. I. (1999). ―Brand Orientation: A Mindset for Building Brands into
Strategic Resources‖, Volume 15, issue 1 —3, p. 117.
58
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the procedures adopted by the researcher in the
conduct of this study.
It would give an insight into the way data and
information about the study were gathered and methods of obtaining them.
These include the following:
1. Scope of the Study
2. Research Design
3. Sources of Data
4. Population of the Study and Sample Size Determination
5. Research Instruments
6. Method of Data Collections and Data Analysis Technique
In essence, this is done with the aim of evaluating the branding
strategy for effective agricultural marketing in Nigeria.
3.2
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The central focus of the study is on branding strategy for effective
agricultural marketing in Nigeria.
THE work would therefore aim at
understanding how branding could add value to agricultural products and
make them remain relevant and competitive in the marketplace. However,
taking cognizance of time factor, availability of funds and other constraints
involved, the study would be limited to the five (5) South- Eastern States of
the country.
3.3
RESEARCH DESIGN
Research design, according to Onwumere (2009: 14) is a blue print that guides
the researcher in his or her investigation and analysis. This research focused on
59
evaluating the branding strategy for agricultural marketing in Nigeria. The
study utilised survey research. The non-experimental survey design involved
a single observation of the sample population, with observations being
descriptively presented (Trochim, 2006). This design entailed survey by the
use of questionnaire administration, which was very useful in obtaining
responses from the study population on the study.
3.4
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
3.4.1 Sources of Data
Primary sources of data were employed in the course of this study.
3.4.2 Primary Data
The primary data was obtained with the aid of questionnaire from the study
population, which will comprise of producers and marketers of agricultural
products in South-Eastern States of Nigeria.
3.4.3 POPULATION
The population of this study comprised of all producers and marketers of
agricultural products in South-Eastern States of Nigeria. This is unknown,
thus the population is infinite.
3.4.4 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
The sampling technique adopted in this study was the stratified random
sampling. The stratified random sampling method involves the division of
the population into classes or groups with each group or stratum having some
definite (similar) characteristics or features (Onwumere, 2009:123). It then
ensures that each group is represented in the sample. The method is justified
because the population of the study comprised of two groups; Producers and
Marketers of agricultural products.
60
3.4.5 SAMPLE SIZE
In determining the sample size, the researcher conducted two pilot surveys in
which 20 copies of the research questionnaire was administered randomly on
producers of agricultural produce and marketers of agricultural products in
the study area respectively.
Out of the 20 questionnaires administered to the producers, 17 (85%) were
correctly filed and returned. It was taken as positive response. The remaining
3 (15%) which were incorrectly filled and rejected were regarded as negative
response.
Furthermore, out of the 20 questionnaires administered to the
marketers, 15 (75%) were correctly filed and returned. It was taken as
positive response. The remaining 5 (25%) which were incorrectly filled and
rejected were regarded as negative response.
In calculating and determining the sample size, the researcher applied the
Freund and Williams Model of Sample Size Determination calculated at 95%
confidence level and 5% standard error.
The formular is:
Where
n = (Z)2 (PQ)
e2
n = Sample size
P = Percentage of Positive Response
Q = Percentage of Negative Response
e = Percentage of Error
Z = Normal variants for the desired confidence level.
The sample size for the producers was therefore calculated as:
n
=
(1.96)2 (85x15)
52
=
4898.04
25
=
195.92
61
Hence the sample size for the producers was determined to be approximately
200.
Also, the sample size for the marketers was therefore calculated as:
n
=
(1.96)2 (75x25)
52
=
7129.688
25
=
288.12
Hence the sample size for the marketers was determined to be approximately
300.
Therefore, the total sample size of the study was calculated to be 200 + 300 =
500.
3.4.6 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
A set of questionnaire was used to collect data from the selected producers
and marketers of agricultural products on the branding strategy of agricultural
products in Nigeria. The questionnaires consisted of Yes/No, Likert‘s Scale
and Multiple-Choice questions.
3.4.7 VALIDITY OF INSTRUMENTS
The research instrument was pre-tested with a group of pumpkin (ugu)
marketers and farmers of spinach (green) in Enugu State to ensure clarity of
instruction and ease of administration.
The questionnaires were validated by the researcher‘s project supervisor and
a data analyst and content validated by a marketing consultant. Items that
62
were identified as irrelevant were dropped and those suggested for item
revision were modified, re-evaluated and included.
3.4.8 RELIABILITY OF INSTRUMENTS
In testing the reliability of the test instruments, Cronbach‘s Alpha was used.
An Alpha of 0.93 and an inter-item (standardised) coefficient of 0.973 were
obtained for the research instrument. These being greater than 0.7 indicate
that the research instruments are very reliable. (see Appendix for detailed
result)
3.4.9 PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION
Research Assistants
The researcher procured the services of three research assistants that assisted
in data collection.
These assistants were students of the Marketing
Department, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus. These assistants are
fluent in English and Igbo, being the local language that is common among
the study area. The research assistants were trained by the researcher on how
to administer the questionnaire and elicit responses from the respondents.
Questionnaire Administration
Copies of questionnaires developed were administered by the researcher and
her research assistants to 484 participants within the period of August 2012 to
September 2012.
The researcher encountered a lot of difficulty in administering the
questionnaire especially for the questions meant for producers of agricultural
products as they hardly exercise patience in answering questions, because
they were deeply involved in the cultivation of their agricultural produce.
63
The questions in the questionnaire were read to the participants by the
research personnel and responses were recorded in the questionnaire. This
ensured that the participants understood the questions asked and the right
responses were captured. This guaranteed a very high per cent success in the
administration and collection of the field data.
3.5
METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS
The researcher employed the use of frequency and percentage tables, charts
and means and standard deviations. The hypotheses one, three and five using
the Z-test statistics while hypotheses two and four were tested using the 2Related Samples (Z) test at a significance level of 5%. The Z-test statistics
was used as it determines the difference in mean response of a distribution
from the individual responses with a view to showing how skewed the
individual responses are from the mean response thereby revealing whether
the distribution is uniform or not. The formula for the test statistic is;
Z-Test
The formula for Z-test is;
…
Z=
where;
3.1
x = population mean
µ = sample mean
σ = standard deviation
n = sample size
64
REFERENCES
Onwumere, J.U.J (2009), Business and Economic Research Methods, Enugu:
Vougasen Limited.
Trochim, William M. (2006), The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd
Edition. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/
65
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.0
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to present, analyze and interpret the results of the
questionnaires obtained during the research study with a view of bringing out
findings and providing solutions to the research problems. Some of the
findings noted through the personal interview session were also taken care of
in the course of this analysis.
The data presented and analyzed here were basically those collected from the
primary sources. The objective of this analysis was to enable the researcher
evaluate the branding strategy for effective Agricultural marketing in Nigeria.
In the analysis, the statements of hypotheses earlier formulated in chapter one
were used as guides and questions relevant to these hypothesis were analyzed
with available data to enable the researcher draw conclusion.
Data collected in the course of this study is presented and discussed
descriptively using frequency tables, percentages and charts according to the
various objectives of the study. The hypotheses one, three and five were
tested using the Z-test statistics while hypotheses two and four were tested
using the 2-Related Sampled (Z) test. These were done with the SPSS 17.0
statistical software.
4.1
DATA PRESENTATION
4.1.1 Return Rate of Questionnaire
Out of the 500 copies of the questionnaire that were administered to the
respondents, 422 copies were correctly/completely filled and returned while
66
78 copies were neither completely/correctly filled nor returned. This gave
84.4% success rate. This is represented in table 4.1 and figure 4.1.
Table 4.1: Return Rate of Questionnaire
Respondents
Administered
Returned
Not
(%)
(%)
(%)
Producers
200 (100.0)
158 (79.0)
42 (21.0)
Marketers
300 (100.0)
264 (88.0)
36 (12.0)
Total
500 (100.0)
422 (84.4)
78 (15.6)
Source:
Returned
Field Survey, 2012
300
250
200
100
Returned
264
150
Not Returned
158
50
Producers
Fig. 4.1:
36
42
0
Marketers
Return Rate of Questionnaire
4.1.2 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The demographic characteristics of the sampled respondents are presented in
tables 4.2 to 4.5.
a) State
The respondents‘ distribution according to their states of location is presented
in table 4.2.
67
Table 4.2: Distribution according to Respondents’ Location
State
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Abia
31 (19.6)
47 (17.8)
78 (18.5)
Anambra
29 (18.4)
55 (20.8)
84 (19.9)
Ebonyi
39 (24.7)
58 (22.0)
97 (23.0)
Enugu
28 (17.7)
53 (20.1)
81 (19.2)
Imo
31 (19.6)
51 (19.3)
82 (19.4)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
60
47
50
40
58
55
31
30
53
51
39
29
28
31
20
10
0
Abia
Anambra
Ebonyi
Producers
Fig. 4.2:
Enugu
Imo
Marketers
State Distribution of Respondents
Table 4.2 shows that the frequency of the respondents from the various states
ranged from 78 respondents in Abia State (18.5%) to 97 respondents in
Ebonyi State (23%). In particular, the producers/farmers ranged from 28
respondents in Enugu State (17.7%) to 39 respondents (24.7%) in Ebonyi
state while marketers ranged from 47 respondents (17.8%) in Abia State to
58 respondents (22%) in Ebonyi State.
b) Gender
The gender distribution of the respondents is presented in table 4.3.
68
Table 4.3: Gender Distribution of Respondents
Sex
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Male
72 (45.6)
101 (38.3)
173 (41.0)
Female
86 (54.4)
163 (61.7)
249 (59.0)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
200
163
150
101
72
100
86
50
0
Males
Females
Producers
Fig. 4.3:
Marketers
Sex Distribution of Respondents
As presented in table 4.3, a higher percentage of the respondents (59%) are
females.
Specifically, majority of the sampled producers are females
(54.4%) and majority of the sampled marketers are females (61.7%). This
indicates that females are more involved in the production and marketing of
agricultural products than males.
c) Marital Status
The distribution of the sampled respondents according to their marital status
is presented in table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Respondents’ Distribution according to Marital Status
Marital Status
Producers (%)
Marketers (%) Total (%)
Single
33 (20.9)
43 (20.9)
76 (18.0)
Married
81 (51.3)
143 (51.3)
224 (53.1)
Divorced/Separated 23 (14.6)
65 (14.6)
88 (20.9)
Widowed
21 (13.3)
13 (13.3)
34 (8.1)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (≈100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
69
150
143
81
100
65
50
43
33
23
21
13
0
Single
Married
Producers
Fig. 4.4:
Divorced/Separated
Widowed
Marketers
Respondents’ Distribution according to Marital Status
As presented in table 4.4, majority of the sampled respondents (53.1%) are
married. With a frequency of 81 (51.3%) and 143 (51.3%) for producers and
marketers respectively, this confirms that the majority of the sampled
respondents are married.
d) Age
The distribution of the respondents according to their age groups is presented
in table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Age Distribution of Respondents
Age Group
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
18 – 27yrs
23 (14.6)
54 (20.5)
77 (18.2)
28 – 37yrs
21 (13.3)
59 (22.3)
80 (19.0)
38 – 47yrs
32 (20.2)
66 (25.0)
98 (23.2)
48yrs and above
82 (51.9)
85 (32.2)
167 (39.6)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
70
100
82
80
40
59
54
60
85
66
32
23
21
20
0
18 - 27yrs
28 - 37yrs
Producers
Fig. 4.5:
38 - 47yrs
48yrs and above
Marketers
Distribution of Respondents by Age Group
Table 4.5 shows that 82 respondents (51.9%) representing majority of the
producers are 48yrs and above while there is no completely clear cut aged
group representing majority of the marketers.
However, 85 respondents
(32.2%), which is a higher frequency, of the marketers are aged 48yrs and
above. Summarily, respondents aged 48yrs and above (39.6%) participated
more in this study.
4.1.3 Responses to Questions on Research Questions
The responses of the respondents to questions 6 to 19 of the question in
relations to answering the research questions are presented and discussed in
table 4.6 to 4.19.
Question 6: Do you know what product branding is?
Table 4.6: Knowledge of Product Branding
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Yes
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
No
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
71
264
300
250
158
200
150
100
50
0
0
0
Producers
Marketers
Yes
Fig. 4.6:
No
Knowledge of Product Branding
As presented in table 4.6, all the sampled respondents acknowledged
knowing what product branding is.
Question 7: Are agricultural products in Nigeria branded?
Table 4.7: Existence of Agricultural Product Branding in Nigeria
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Yes
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
No
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Don‘t Know
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
264
300
250
200
158
150
100
50
0
0
0
0
0
Producers
Marketers
Yes
Fig. 4.7:
No
Don't Know
Agricultural Product Branding in Nigeria
72
Table 4.7 shows that every of the sampled respondents (both producers and
marketers of agricultural products) noted that agricultural products are
branded in Nigeria.
Question 8: To What Extent Does Branding Enhance The Marketing Of
Agricultural Products?
Table 4.8: Extent Branding Enhances Marketing of Agricultural
Products
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Very
Great 76 (48.1)
132 (50.0)
208 (49.3)
Extent
Great Extent
43 (27.2)
65 (27.2)
108 (25.6)
Moderate Extent
23 (14.6)
32 (12.1)
55 (13.0)
Little Extent
11 (7.0)
26 (9.8)
37 (8.8)
No Extent
5 (3.2)
9 (3.4)
14 (3.3)
Total
158 (≈100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
132
76
43
65
23
Very Great Extent
Great Extent
Moderate Extent
Producers
Fig. 4.8:
32
11
26
Little Extent
5
9
No Extent
Marketers
Extent Branding enhances Agricultural Products’ Marketing
Table 4.8 shows that only 5 respondents (3.2%) and 9 respondents (3.4%) of
producers and marketers respectively are of the opinion that branding does
not enhance the marketing of agricultural products. Thus, as pointed out by
73
majority of the respondents, branding enhances the marketing of agricultural
products and to a very great extent (49.3%).
Question 9: In Which of the Following Ways has Branding Enhanced
The Marketing and Consumerism of Agricultural Products
In Nigeria?
Table 4.9: Ways Branding enhances Agricultural Product Marketing*
Response
Increased customer patronage/demand
Producers
Marketers
Total
(%)
(%)
(%)
139 (90.8)
214 (83.9)
353
(86.5)
Increased production
143 (93.5)
221 (86.7)
364
(89.2)
More efficient and standardised production 78 (51.0)
212 (83.1)
process
Produce
290
(71.1)
meeting
with
international 104 (68.0)
167 (65.5)
standards
271
(66.4)
Enhanced customer loyalty and retention
113 (73.9)
198 (77.6)
311
(76.2)
N
153 (100.0)
255 (100.0)
408
(100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
* Multiple Response
74
Enhanced customer loyalty and retention
198
113
Produce meeting with international standards
167
104
More efficient and standardised production process
212
78
Increased production
Increased customer patronage/demand
214
139
0
50
100
Producers
Fig. 4.9:
221
143
150
200
250
Marketers
Ways Branding enhances Agricultural Product Marketing
Table 4.9 shows that among the 153 producers that agreed that branding
enhances the marketing of agricultural products, majority of them noted that
the major ways in which branding enhances agricultural product marketing is
by increasing production (143 responses) and increasing customer
patronage/demand (139 responses). These were the ways pointed out by
86.7% and 83.9% marketers respectively; also 83.1% marketers noted that it
ensure more efficient and standardised production process.
Question 10:
Do you know different brands to particular produces?
Table 4.10: Knowledge of Different Brands of Particular Produces
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Yes
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
No
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
75
264
300
250
158
200
150
100
50
0
0
0
Producers
Marketers
Yes
Fig. 4.10:
No
Knowledge of Different Brands of Particular Produces
Table 4.10 shows that all the respondents said that they know of different
brands of different particular agricultural produces.
Question 11:
To what extent do you think that brands that are more
attractive experience more customer patronage?
Table 4.11: Extent more attractive brands experience more customer
patronage
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Great Extent
65 (41.1)
91 (34.5)
156 (37.0)
Moderate Extent
45 (28.5)
109 (41.3)
154 (36.5)
Little Extent
29 (18.4)
43 (16.3)
72 (17.1)
No Extent
19 (12.0)
21 (8.0)
40 (9.5)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (≈100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
120
109
91
100
80
65
45
60
29
40
43
20
19
21
0
Great Extent
Moderate Extent
Producers
Fig. 4.11:
Little Extent
No Extent
Marketers
Extent more attractive brands experience more customer
patronage
76
As shown in table 4.11, with 156 respondents (37%) and 154 respondents
(36.5%) indicating great extent and moderate extent respectively, it is the
general opinion of the respondents that more attractive brands experience
more customer patronage. This is the specific view of the producers and
marketers as shown in the table.
Question 12:
How well do branded agricultural produce experience
more patronage than agricultural produce that are not
branded?
Table 4.12: Response to Question 12
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Very Well
89 (56.3)
167 (63.3)
256 (60.7)
Moderately Well
54 (34.2)
76 (28.8)
130 (30.8)
Poorly Well
13 (8.2)
17 (6.4)
30 (7.1)
Not at all
2 (1.3)
4 (1.5)
6 (1.4)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
200
167
150
100
89
54
76
50
13
17
0
Very Well
Moderately Well
Producers
Fig. 4.12:
Poorly Well
2
4
Not at all
Marketers
Responses to Question 12
Table 4.12 reveals that majority of the respondents (60.7%), 89 producers
(56.3%) and 167 marketers (63.3%), noted that branded agricultural produce
experience more patronage than agricultural produce that are not branded
very well.
77
Question 13:Do you think that branding has contributed to profit
making among agricultural producers?
Table 4.13: Perception on whether Branding contributes to Profit
Making
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Yes
123 (77.8)
198 (75.0)
321 (76.1)
No
10 (6.3)
44 (16.7)
54 (12.8)
Don‘t Know
25 (15.8)
22 (8.3)
47 (11.1)
Total
158 (≈100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
198
200
150
123
100
44
50
10
25
22
0
Yes
No
Producers
Fig. 4.13:
Don't Know
Marketers
Perception on whether Branding contributes to Profit Making
As represented in table 4.13, with the responses of 123 producers (77.8%),
198 marketers (75%) and a total response of 321 (76.1%) it is the view of the
respondents that branding has contributed to profit making among
agricultural producers.
78
If ‘Yes’ to question 13, how has branding contributed
Question 14:
to profit making among agricultural producers?
Table 4.14: Extent of Contribution to Profit Making
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Very
90 (57.0)
134 (50.8)
224 (53.1)
Significantly
43 (27.2)
98 (37.1)
141 (33.4)
Fairly
17 (10.8)
29 (11.0)
46 (11.0)
8 (5.1)
3 (11.4)
11 (2.6)
158 (≈100.0)
264 (≈100.0)
422 (≈100.0)
Significantly
Significantly
Poorly
Significantly
Total
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
150
100
134
98
90
43
50
17
29
0
very significantly
significantly
Producers
Fig. 4.14:
fairly significantly
8
3
poorly significantly
Marketers
Extent of Contribution to Profit Making
As presented in table 4.14 it is the view of the respondents that branding has
contributed to profit making among agricultural producers very significantly.
This is reflected is the view of 90 producers (57%) and 134 marketers
(50.8%) as well as a total of 224 respondents (53.1%).
79
Question 15: How do you rate the distribution of agricultural products?
Table 4.15: Rating of Agricultural Products Distribution
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Very Effective
73 (46.2)
143 (54.2)
216 (51.2)
Effective
32 (20.3)
78 (29.5)
110 (26.1)
Fairly Effective
23 (14.6)
25 (9.5)
48 (11.4)
Poorly Effective
19 (12.0)
14 (5.3)
33 (7.8)
Ineffective
11 (7.0)
4 (1.5)
15 (3.6)
Total
158 (≈100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (≈100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
150
100
143
73
50
78
32
23
19
25
14
0
Very Effective
Effective
Fairly Effective
Producers
Fig. 4.15:
Poorly Effective
11
4
Ineffective
Marketers
Rating of Agricultural Products Distribution
Table 4.15 reveals that with the responses of 73 producers (46.2%) and 143
marketers (54.2%) who indicated very effective and 32 producers (20.3%)
and 78 marketers (29.5%) who indicated effective, it is the majority opinion
of the respondents that the distribution of agricultural products is effective.
80
Question 16: How do you rate the segmentation of agricultural markets
in Nigeria?
Table 4.16: Rating of Segmentation of Agricultural Markets in Nigeria
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Very Effective
54 (34.2)
99 (37.5)
153 (36.3)
Effective
43 (27.2)
86 (32.6)
129 (30.6)
Fairly Effective
34 (21.5)
54 (20.5)
88 (20.8)
Poorly Effective
17 (10.8)
16 (6.1)
33 (7.8)
Ineffective
10 (6.3)
9 (3.4)
19 (4.5)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (≈100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
100
99
86
80
60
54
43
40
54
34
17
20
16
10
9
0
Very Effective
Effective
Fairly Effective
Producers
Fig. 4.16:
Poorly Effective
Ineffective
Marketers
Rating of Segmentation of Agricultural Markets in Nigeria
Table 4.16 shows that the responses of the respondents varied mainly
between effective and very effective.
In particular it revealed that 54
producers (34.2%) and 99 marketers (37.5%) are of the view that the
segmentation of agricultural markets in Nigeria is very effective while 43
producers (27.2%) and 86 marketers (32.6%) are of the view that the
segmentation of agricultural markets in Nigeria is effective.
81
Question 17: In which of the following ways have branding as a strategy
contributed to the effective distribution and segmentation of
agricultural markets in Nigeria?
Table 4.17: Contributions of Branding to Effective
Segmentation
Response
Producers
(%)
Product
cluster
development
and 132 (83.5)
enlargement
Differentiation among closely resembling 102 (64.6)
brands
Ability to serve separate markets with 143 (90.5)
separate products
Branding makes it easier to match 153 (96.8)
Distribution and
Marketers
(%)
198 (75.0)
Total (%)
231 (87.5)
333 (78.9)
213 (80.7)
356 (84.4)
245 (92.8)
398 (92.8)
167 (63.3)
258 (61.1)
330 (78.2)
products to the customer‘s needs
Branding is an appropriate market entry 91 (57.6)
strategy for smaller operators
Ensure product quality
111 (70.3)
199 (75.4)
310 (73.5)
N
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422
(100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
Ensure product quality
199
111
Branding is an appropriate market entry strategy for smaller
operators
167
91
Branding makes it easier to match products to the customer’s
needs
Ability to serve separate markets with separate products
213
143
Differentiation among closely resembling brands
231
102
Product cluster development and enlargement
132
0
50
100
150
Producers
Fig. 4.17:
245
153
198
200
250
300
Marketers
Contributions of Branding to Effective Distribution and
Segmentation
82
As shown in table 4.17, with more than 50% of the various categories of
respondents indicating, it is the view of the respondents that product cluster
development and enlargement, differentiation among closely resembling
brands, ability to serve separate markets with separate products, easier
marching of products, appropriate market entry strategy for smaller operators
and product quality are ways branding as a strategy contributed to effective
distribution and segmentation of agricultural markets in Nigeria.
Question 18:
Does branding play any role in the pricing of
agricultural products?
Table 4.18: Responses to Question 18
Response
Producers (%)
Marketers (%)
Total (%)
Yes
134 (84.8)
241 (91.3)
375 (88.9)
No
24 (15.2)
23 (8.7)
47 (11.1)
Total
158 (100.0)
264 (100.0)
422 (100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
241
250
200
134
150
100
24
50
23
0
Producers
Marketers
Yes
Fig. 4.18:
No
Responses to Question 18
As indicated in table 4.18, 134 producers (84.8%) and 241 marketers (91.3%)
are of the opinion that branding plays a role in the pricing of agricultural
products. With 88.9% of the total responses, this is considered to be the
general view of the respondents.
83
Question 19: If Yes, what are the roles branding plays on the pricing of
agricultural products?
Table 4.19: Roles Branding plays on Agricultural Products’ Pricing
Response
Producers
Marketers
Total (%)
(%)
(%)
Helps in choice decision
102 (76.1)
231 (95.9)
333 (88.8)
Reduces overall sales costs
98 (73.1)
210 (87.1)
308 (82.1)
It is a major determinant to buyer‘s choice
121 (90.3)
198 (82.2)
319 (85.1)
It makes consumers believe that the 115 (85.8)
179 (74.3)
294 (78.4)
product is of high quality
It breeds competition amongst products
104 (77.6)
219 (90.9)
323 (86.1)
Product prestige is increased
91 (67.9)
178 (73.9)
269 (71.7)
N
134 (100.0)
241 (100.0)
375
(100.0)
Source:
Field Survey, 2012
Product prestige is increased
178
91
It breeds competition amongst products
It makes consumers believe that the product is of high quality
115
It is a major determinant to buyer’s choice
179
198
121
Reduces overall sales costs
210
98
Helps in choice decision
231
102
0
50
100
Producers
Fig. 4.19:
219
104
150
200
250
Marketers
Roles Branding plays on Agricultural Products’ Pricing
Table 4.19 reveals more than 50% of the respondents indicated that the roles
branding plays on the pricing of agricultural products are that it helps in
choice decision, reduces overall sales costs, is a major determinant to buyer‘s
84
choice, makes consumers believe that the product is of high quality, breeds
competition amongst products and increases product prestige.
4.2 TEST OF HYPOTHESES
The results from the test of the various hypotheses statements are presented
and discussed below.
4.2.1 Test of Hypothesis One
Branding strategy has no effect on the marketing of agricultural products in
Nigeria.
In testing this hypothesis, Z-test was used in testing the data presented in
table 4.8. The results are presented in table 4.20 and discussed.
Table 4.20: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Z) Test Results for
Hypothesis One
To what extent does branding enhance the
marketing of agricultural products
N
422
Normal
Mean
1.9123
Parametersa,,b
Std.
1.12598
Deviation
Most
Differences
Extreme Absolute
.284
Positive
.284
Negative
-.209
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
5.834
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
85
Decision Rule
If Zcalculated > Zcritical or –Zcalculated < -Zcritical, reject the null hypothesis and
accept the alternative hypothesis.
Decision
As presented in table 4.20, the calculated Z-value is 5.834. This is greater
than the critical Z-value of 1.96 (at 95% level of significance) i.e. Zcalculated
(5.834) > Zcritical (1.96). This result is significant as asymptotic significance
(p-value) of 0.000 < 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected and the
alternative hypothesis accepted accordingly. Hence, branding strategy has
effect on the marketing of agricultural products in Nigeria.
Test of Hypothesis Two
Branding does not influence the choice of consumers of agricultural products
In testing this hypothesis, 2-Related Samples (Z) test was used in testing the
data presented in tables 4.11 and 4.12. The results are presented in table 4.21
and 4.22 and discussed.
Table 4.21: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks for Data in Tables 4.11 and 4.12
Mean
Sum
N
Rank
of
Ranks
206a 103.50
21321.00
than agricultural produce that are not Positive
0b
.00
branded? – To what extent do you Ranks
think that brands that are more
Ties
attractive experience more customer
Total
patronage?
216c
How well do branded agricultural Negative
produce experience more patronage Ranks
.00
422
86
a. How well do branded agricultural produce experience more patronage than
agricultural produce that are not branded? < To what extent do you think that
brands that are more attractive experience more customer patronage?
b. How well do branded agricultural produce experience more patronage than
agricultural produce that are not branded? > To what extent do you think that
brands that are more attractive experience more customer patronage?
c. How well do branded agricultural produce experience more patronage than
agricultural produce that are not branded? = To what extent do you think that
brands that are more attractive experience more customer patronage?
Table 4.22: Z- Test Statisticsb
How well do branded agricultural produce experience more
patronage than agricultural produce that are not branded? – To
what extent do you think that brands that are more attractive
experience more customer patronage?
-14.219a
Z
Asymp.
Sig.
(2- .000
tailed)
a. Based on positive ranks.
b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
Decision Rule
If Zcalculated > Zcritical or –Zcalculated < -Zcritical, reject the null hypothesis and
accept the alternative hypothesis.
Decision
As presented in table 4.22, the calculated Z-value is -14.219. This is less
than the critical Z-value of -1.96 (at 95% level of significance) i.e. Zcalculated (87
14.219) < Zcritical (-1.96). This result is significant as asymptotic significance
(p-value) of 0.000 < 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected and the
alternative hypothesis accepted accordingly. Hence, branding influences the
choice of consumers of agricultural products.
4.2.3 Test of Hypothesis Three
Branding has no contributions to profit making among agricultural producers
In testing this hypothesis, Z-test was used in testing the data presented in
table 4.13. The results are presented in table 4.23 and discussed.
Table 4.23: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Z) Test Results for
Hypothesis Three
Do you think that branding has
contributed to profit making among
agricultural producers?
N
422
Normal
Mean
1.3507
Parametersa,,b
Std. Deviation
.67196
Most
Extreme Absolute
Differences
.460
Positive
.460
Negative
-.301
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
9.446
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Decision Rule
If Zcalculated > Zcritical or –Zcalculated < -Zcritical, reject the null hypothesis and
accept the alternative hypothesis.
88
Decision
As presented in table 4.23, the calculated Z-value is 9.446. This is greater
than the critical Z-value of 1.96 (at 95% level of significance) i.e. Zcalculated
(9.446) > Zcritical (1.96). This result is significant as asymptotic significance
(p-value) of 0.000 < 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected and the
alternative hypothesis accepted accordingly.
Hence, branding has
contributions to profit making among agricultural producers.
4.2.4 Test of Hypothesis Four
Branding does not contribute to the effective distribution and segmentation of
agricultural products.
In testing this hypothesis, 2-Related Samples (Z) test was used in testing the
data presented in tables 4.15 and 4.16. The results are presented in table 4.24
and 4.25 and discussed.
Table 4.24: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks for Data in Tables 4.15 and 4.16
Mean
Sum
N
Rank
Ranks
0a
.00
.00
markets in Nigeria? – How Positive
do you rate the distribution of Ranks
115b
58.00
6670.00
agricultural products?
Ties
307c
Total
422
How
do
you
rate
the Negative
of
segmentation of agricultural Ranks
a. How do you rate the segmentation of agricultural markets in Nigeria? <
How do you rate the distribution of agricultural products?
89
b. How do you rate the segmentation of agricultural markets in Nigeria? >
How do you rate the distribution of agricultural products?
c. How do you rate the segmentation of agricultural markets in Nigeria? =
How do you rate the distribution of agricultural products?
Table 4.25: Z-Test Statisticsb
How do you rate the segmentation of agricultural markets
in Nigeria? – How do you rate the distribution of
agricultural products?
-10.724a
Z
Asymp.
Sig.
(2- .000
tailed)
a. Based on negative ranks.
b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
Decision Rule
If Zcalculated > Zcritical or –Zcalculated < -Zcritical, reject the null hypothesis and
accept the alternative hypothesis.
Decision
As presented in table 4.22, the calculated Z-value is -10.724. This is less
than the critical Z-value of -1.96 (at 95% level of significance) i.e. Zcalculated (10.724) < Zcritical (-1.96). This result is significant as asymptotic significance
(p-value) of 0.000 < 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected and the
alternative hypothesis accepted accordingly. Hence, branding contributes to
the effective distribution and segmentation of agricultural products.
90
4.2.5 Test of Hypothesis Five
Branding plays no role in the pricing of agricultural products in Nigeria
In testing this hypothesis, Z-test was used in testing the data presented in
table 4.18. The results are presented in table 4.26 and discussed.
Table 4.26: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Z) Test Results for
Hypothesis Five
Does branding play any role in the pricing
of agricultural products?
N
422
Normal
Mean
1.1114
Parametersa,,b
Std.
.31497
Deviation
Most
Extreme Absolute
Differences
.527
Positive
.527
Negative
-.362
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
10.822
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Decision Rule
If Zcalculated > Zcritical or –Zcalculated < -Zcritical, reject the null hypothesis and
accept the alternative hypothesis.
Decision
As presented in table 4.26, the calculated Z-value is 10.822. This is greater
than the critical Z-value of 1.96 (at 95% level of significance) i.e. Zcalculated
91
(10.822) > Zcritical (1.96). This result is significant as asymptotic significance
(p-value) of 0.000 < 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected and the
alternative hypothesis accepted accordingly. Hence, branding plays a role in
the pricing of agricultural products in Nigeria.
4.3 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The findings of this study are discussed under the various objectives of the
study.
4.3.1 Effect of Branding Strategy on the Marketing of Agricultural
Products
With adequate implementation of product branding in Nigeria, the branding
strategy has proven to enhance the marketing of agricultural products (table
4.8).
It is revealed that it has the effect of increased customer
patronage/demand, which results in increased production. When production
is increased, the production process is looked into to ensure that it is more
efficient and standardised, thereby meeting up with international standards.
This will at both the short and long run enhance customer loyalty and
retention (table 4.9). These findings were validated to be significant with the
result of the test of hypothesis one which gave Zcalculated (5.834) > Zcritical
(1.96), thereby indicating that branding strategy has effect on the marketing
of agricultural products in Nigeria.
4.3.2 Influence of Branding on Consumers’ Choice
The study established that the attractiveness of brands go a long way to
determine the extent of customer patronage and loyalty (table 4.11)
Customers are easily attracted to more attractive brands and it makes them
want to be identified with the product at any time. Also, customers trust
92
products that have brands than those that do not as they can identify the
product with a particular producer in the case of eventualities. Consumers
generally feel safer with a branded product than one that is not, thus the
higher patronage of branded products than unbranded products (table 4.12).
These results are strengthened by the result of the test of hypothesis two,
which gives Zcalculated (-14.219) < Zcritical (-1.96) thereby indicating that
branding influences the choice of consumers of agricultural products.
4.3.3 Extent Branding contributes to Profit Making among Agricultural
Producers
When there is increase in production and production capacity and as well as
increase in product demand, profit increases.
When branding enhances
product production and demand, it invariably enhances profit maximisation
(tables 4.13 and 4.14). Thus, as revealed in the study, branding goes a long
way in ensuring that producers make profit. This can be tied to the reason
that when consumers like and are loyal to a particular brand, they look for
that brand to buy and only buy a substitute in the absence of that brand. This
is significant as the result of the test of hypothesis three, which is Zcalculated
(9.446) > Zcritical (1.96) reveals that branding contributes to profit making
among agricultural producers.
4.3.4 Contribution
of
Branding
to
Effective
Distribution
and
Segmentation of Agricultural Markets
The study shows that effective agricultural product distribution is tied to
branding (table 4.15). The demand for certain brands ensures that there are
proper distributive channels for such products to reach the end-users. When
these products are not made available production is hampered. Branding as a
strategy enables the marketers and producers know who needs what, when
93
and where. When this is effectively implemented there is a very strategic and
efficient segmentation of the market. Thus, branding further plays the role of
segmenting the agricultural market. This result is significant as the result of
the test of hypothesis four, which is Zcalculated (-10.724) < Zcritical (-1.96),
reveals that branding can contribute to the effective distribution and
segmentation of agricultural products. This is results in the development and
enlargement of agricultural product cluster, differentiation of closely
resembling brands, availability of separate markets for separate products,
product matching to customers‘ needs, appropriate market entry strategy for
smaller operators and product quality.
4.2.5 Role of Branding in Agricultural Product Pricing
As revealed from data obtained in the course of this study, branding plays a
very important role in the pricing of agricultural products (table 4.18). These
roles include helping consumers in choice decision, reducing producers
overall sales costs, being a major determinant to buyers‘ choice, making
consumers believe that the product is of high quality, breeding completion
amongst products and increasing product prestige (table 4.19). With these
influences, there is always a serious price variation between branded
agricultural products and unbranded agricultural products. This finding is
validated significant as the result from the test of hypothesis five, which is
Zcalculated (10.822) > Zcritical (1.96) shows that branding plays a role in the
pricing of agricultural products in Nigeria.
94
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the findings from the research. The
findings are in line with the various objectives and hypotheses formulated in
chapter one of this research work. Conclusions were drawn and relevant
recommendation was made from the research.
5.2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This research focused on the branding strategy for effective Agricultural
marketing in Nigeria. This was done in order to ascertain the effect of
branding in the effective marketing of Agricultural products in Nigeria.
The major findings of this study are;
1.
Branding strategy has effect on the marketing of agricultural products
in Nigeria as it makes it easy to market,
2.
Branding does not influence the choice of consumers of agricultural
products,
3.
It was also found out from the study that branding of Agricultural
products significantly contribute to profit making among Agricultural
producers and marketers.
4.
The study also reveals that branding significantly influence the
effective distribution and segmentation of agricultural products in Nigeria.
5.
Branding of Agricultural products influence and plays a role in the
pricing of agricultural products in Nigeria.
6.
It was also found out from the study that most agricultural products are
branded based on the production area. For instance, we have Abakaliki rice
produced in Abakaliki, and Benue yam, produced in Benue.
95
5.3
CONCLUSION
This study on branding strategy for agricultural marketing in Nigeria focused
particularly on determining the attributes, benefits, values and beliefs that
consumers derive from branded products and the effect of branding strategy
on the marketing of agricultural products, assessing how branding influences
consumers‘ choice and increase the number of users of agricultural products
in Nigeria, determining the extent branding contributes to profit making
among agricultural producers, determining if branding contributes to
effective distribution and segmentation of agricultural markets and evaluating
the role branding plays in the pricing of agricultural products in Nigeria.
Branding as a marketing strategy has been established to be a vital key in the
promotion of any product, so much so that certain services are also branded.
A brand is a representative of an organisation‘s philosophy and quality.
Thus, certain brand names attract high patronage and subsequently higher
prices, while ensuring quality.
With this, it is believed that with full
application of branding to agricultural products, the quality of such products
are assured, consumers‘ choice are influenced, profit maximised, distribution
and segmentation of such products and product markets enhanced and
adequate pricing system is established, thereby ensuring healthy competition
and growth in the agricultural sector.
This leaves no doubt, that when branding is not utilised, the reverse is the
case. The findings from this study have revealed the essentiality of branding
and as such the need to encourage agricultural producers brand their
products. This has shown to go a long way in ensuring the viability of the
agricultural sector in Nigeria. Hence, there is need for the implementation of
branding of agricultural products.
96
5.4
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations are;
1. Agricultural producers should implement branding of their agricultural
products;
2. Research and Development should be intensified towards better
agricultural product packaging, particularly for perishable agricultural
products, which will go a long way in aiding the branding of such
products;
3. Funds and soft loans should be made available to peasant farmers who
do not have the capacity to brand their agricultural products;
4. The government and corporate organisations should be proactively
involved in ensuring that brands are utilised, as it will go a long way in
regulating the agricultural sector and ensuring that quality is regulated
in the industry.
5.5
FURTHER RESEARCH AREAS:
To follow up the findings of this study, more investigations would be
required in the following areas.
1. Agricultural marketing and rural credit for strengthening Nigerian
agriculture.
2. Marketing and distribution channels for branded agricultural products
in Nigeria.
3. The effect of branding on consumer choice decision in agricultural
marketing
4. Agricultural product branding as an appropriate market entry strategy
for small scale farmers in Nigeria.
5. The effect of branding strategy in the distribution and segmentation of
agricultural markets in Nigeria.
97
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achison, C.B. (2006), Product Planning and Development, Enugu, UNEC.
Adekanye, T, (1988). Reading in Agricultural Economic; London; Longman
Group Ltd.
Adesina, A. A. and J. Baidu-Forson (1995), ―Farmers‘ Perceptions and
Adoption of New Agricultural Technology: Evidence from Burkina
Faso and Guinea‖, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 13: 1-9
Adubi, K.O; and A.A. Jibowo; (2006). Perception of Women on their role
Performance and the Relevance in Promoting Rural Development in
Osun State, Nigeria; Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology; .6, 1& 2; pp
49-54
Agbarevo, M.N.B; and C.P.O Obinne; (2010). Agricultural Marketing
Extension; Elements of Rural Sociology and Agricultural Extension;
Uwani, Enugu, Leo Publishers; pp.190-198.
Anyaogu, P. M and Uduji, J. I., (2012), Marketing Communications: Theory
and Practice, Enugu, Educational Networks Development Limited.
Anyaogu, P. M and Uduji, J. I., (2012), Marketing Communications: Theory
and Practice, Enugu, Educational Networks Development Limited.
Bibagambah, J.R; (1996). Marketing of Small holder Crops in Uganda;
Kampala — Uganda. Fountain Publishers Ltd; pp.64-69
Bowbrick, P. (1992), The Economics of Quality, Grades and Brands,
Routledge Publishers.
Crawford, I. M. (1997). Agricultural and Food Marketing Management,
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
chapter 12.
Darrah, L. B. (1997), Food Marketing, New York: Ronald Press Company.
Darrah, L. B. (1997), Food Marketing, New York: Ronald Press Company.
Ehikwe, A. E. (2002), Transportation and Distribution Management,
Precision Publishers Ltd.,
ENADEP; (2009). ―Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme;
Annual Report; 36pp.
98
Evans J.R. and Berman B. (1990), Marketing: Macmillan Publishing
Company, New York.
Ezirim, A. C. et al (2003), Dynamics of Agricultural and Food Marketing in
Nigeria: Port Harcourt, Horizon Concepts.
Kohls, R. L. and Uhl, J. N. 2002. Marketing of Agricultural Products: Ninth
Edition. Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P and Armstrong G. (2012), Principles of Marketing: Essex,
England, Pearson Education Limited.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong P. (2008), Principles of Marketing, (12th Edition),
Prentice Hall Inc.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2004), Marketing Management, Analysis,
Planning, Implementation and Control,
Eagle Wood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing Management: Twelfth
edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
McCarthy J. E. (1984), Basic Marketing: 8th Edition, Illinios, USA, Richard
Irwin Inc.
Nebo O. N. (2000), Principles of Modern Marketing: Enugu, Precious and
Queen Nigeria Limited.
Onwumere, J.U.J (2009), Business and Economic Research Methods, Enugu:
Vougasen Limited.
Onyeabor, E. N; (2009). Marketing and Distribution Channels; Agricultural
Marketing for Developing Economies; Enugu, John Jacob‘s Classic
Publishers Ltd; pp.14-25.
Perreault, W.D., and McCarthy, E. J. (2002), Basic Marketing: A Global
Managerial Approach, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Png, I. and Reitman, D. (1995), Why Are Some Products Branded And
Others Not? Journal of Law and Economics, Volume 38, April, pages
207-224.
Sparke, K. and K. Menrad (2009), ―Cross-European and functional foodRelated consumer segmentation for new product development‖,
Journal of Food Product Marketing, 15: 213-230.
Suffork R & Stapleton J. (1995), Marketing Clay, The Chance Press Ltd.
99
Suffork R. and Stapleton J. (1995), Marketing Clay, The Chance.
Trochim, William M. (2006), The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd
Edition. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/
Udeagha A. O. (1995), Principles and Process of Marketing, Enugu, J.T.C.
Publishers.
Udeagha, A. 0. (1995), Principles and Processes of Marketing, Enugu: J.T.C.
Publishers.
Uduji, J. I. (2012), Advertising Management, Enugu: His Glory
Publications.
Uduji, J. I. (2012), Public Relations Management, Enugu: His Glory
Publications.
Urde, N. I. (1999). ―Brand Orientation: A Mindset for Building Brands into
Strategic Resources‖, Volume 15, Issue 1 —3, p. 117.
100
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
Department of Marketing
Faculty of Business Administration
University of Nigeria
Enugu Campus
December, 2012.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a Postgraduate Student of Department of Marketing of the above
Faculty and University. I am conducting a research study on ―Branding
Strategy for Effective Agricultural Marketing in Nigeria‖. This study is in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Postgraduate Master
of Business Administration (MBA) Degree in Marketing.
I would be very grateful if you could kindly spare some time to answer my
questionnaire. I would like to assure you that all information provided by
you will be treated in the strictest confidence and used solely for academic
purposes.
Yours faithfully
IKPORAH ESTHER N. (MRS)
PG/MBA/11/60239
101
QUESTIONNAIRE
Section A: Demographic Data
1. State:
(a) Abia
(b) Anambra(c) Ebonyi (d) Enugu
2. Status:
(a) Producer (b) Marketer
3. Sex:
(a) Male
(e) Imo
(b) Female
4. Marital Status: (a) Single
(b) Married (c) Divorced/Separated
(d)
Widowed
5. Age:
(a) 18 – 27yrs
(b) 28 – 37yrs
(c) 38 – 47yrs
(d)
48yrs and above
Section B
6. Do you know what product branding is? (a) Yes
(b) No
7. Are agricultural products in Nigeria branded? (a) Yes (b) No
(c)
Don‘t Know
8. To what extent does branding enhance the marketing of agricultural
products?
(a) Very Great Extent (b) Great Extent (c) Moderate Extent (d) Little
Extent (e) None
9. In which of the following ways has branding enhanced the marketing and
consumerism of agricultural products in Nigeria?
Ways
Yes No
a) Increased customer patronage/demand
b) Increased production
c) More efficient and standardised production process
d) Produce meeting with international standards
e) Enhanced customer loyalty and retention
102
10. Do you know of different brands to particular produces?
(a) Yes
(b) No
11. To what extent do you think that brands that are more attractive
experience more customer patronage? (a) Great Extent (b) Moderate
Extent (c) Little Extent (d) No Extent
12. How well do branded agricultural produce experience more patronage
than agricultural produce that are not branded? (a) Very Well (b)
Moderately Well (c) Poorly Well (d) Not at all
13. Do you think that branding has contributed to profit making among
agricultural producers?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Don‘t Know
14. If ‗Yes‘ to question 13, how has branding, as a strategy, contributed to
profit amongst agricultural producers?
(a) Very significantly (b) Significantly (c) Fairly significantly (d) Poorly
Significantly
15. How do you rate the distribution of agricultural products?
(a) Very effective (b) Effective (c) Fairly Effective (d) Poorly Effective
(e) Ineffective
16. How do you rate the segmentation of agricultural markets in Nigeria?
(a) Very effective (b) Effective (c) Fairly Effective (d) Poorly Effective (e)
Ineffective
103
17. In which of the following ways have branding as a strategy contributed to
the effective distribution and segmentation of agricultural markets in
Nigeria?
Ways
Yes No
a) Product cluster development and enlargement
b) Differentiation among closely resembling brands
c) Ability to serve separate markets with separate products
d) Branding makes it easier to match products to the customer‘s
needs
e) Branding is an appropriate market entry strategy for smaller
operators
f) Ensures product quality
18. Does branding play any role in the pricing of agricultural products?
(a) Yes (b) No
(c) Don‘t know
19. If yes, what are the roles branding plays on the pricing of agricultural
products?
Roles
Yes No
a) Helps in choice decision
b) Reduces overall sales costs
c) It is a major determinant to buyer‘s choice
d) It makes consumers believe that the product is of high quality
e) It breeds competition amongst products
f) Product prestige is increased
104
APPENDIX
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Reliability Analysis
Case Processing Summary
N
%
20
100.0
Excludeda
0
.0
Total
20
100.0
Cases Valid
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Cronbach's
Alpha
Based
on N
Alpha
Standardized Items
Items
.930
.973
15
of
105