To Study Market Potential of Tomato Seed Business in Dhamda

Nunhems, 9.58%

Others, 20.91%

Seminis, 8.86%

Unicorn, 2.14%
Mahyco, 7.95%

Tokita, 2.14%

East West, 2.93%

Doctor, 5.00% Syngenta, 7.86%

Sungro, 5.62%

US Agri, 7.10%

Century, 6.19%
IAHS, 6.93%
Golden, 6.79%

Fig. 5.12: Share of Major Players of Tomato Seed of Dhamda

4.2.8 Factors influencing buying decision of farmers

The respondents were asked about the source of information, which influenced their

buying decision. Factors which affect the purchase decision are advertisements, salesman,

dealer’s recommendations etc.

Table 4.30: Factors influencing buying decision of farmers with land holding ≤3 acres
(N=30)
parameters SA A N DA SDA Mean Standard t score
score deviation
2 1 0 -1 -2

Print advertisement 0 10 9 8 3 -0.13 1.00 -0.72

T.V. commercials 0 0 0 14 16 -1.56 0.50 -17.00*

Word of mouth 12 18 0 0 0 1.40 0.49 15.36*

Salesman 0 10 17 1 2 0.16 0.79 1.15

Dealers 18 12 0 0 0 1.60 0.49 17.56*

recommendation

Own experience 18 12 0 0 0 1.60 0.49 17.56*

Display at shop 0 11 16 3 0 0.26 0.63 2.28*

Signboards/hoardings 0 13 15 2 0 0.36 0.61 3.26*

University 5 17 5 3 0 0.80 0.84 5.16*

recommendations

* Significant at 5% level of significance (Tested against µ=0)

In case farmers with land holding ≤3 acres, strong agreement was shown with parameters

like dealers recommendation, own experience and word of mouth, with weighted mean score of
1.6,1.6 and 1.4 respectively, showing that these three factors effect the most as regards to the

buying decision of farmers.

Farmers showed strong disagreement with the factor T.V commercials, with weighted

mean score of -1.56, showing that it didn’t effect their buying decision. All the factors were

found to be significant at 5% level of significance except print advertisement and salesman.

Table 4.31: Factors influencing buying decision of farmers with land holding >3 ≤6 acres
(N=30)
parameters SA A N DA SDA Mean Standar t
score d
2 1 0 -1 -2 deviatio score
n

Print advertisement 0 10 5 12 3 -0.16 1.01 -0.89

T.V. commercials 0 0 0 11 19 -1.63 0.49 -18.22*

Word of mouth 14 16 0 0 0 1.46 0.50 15.81*

Salesman 0 11 16 1 2 0.20 0.80 1.35

Dealers 19 11 0 0 0 1.63 0.49 18.22*

recommendation

Own experience 16 14 0 0 0 1.53 0.50 16.52*

Display at shop 0 14 14 2 0 0.40 0.62 3.52*

Signboards/hoardings 0 17 12 1 0 0.53 0.57 5.10*

University 5 19 4 2 0 0.90 0.76 6.48*

recommendations

* Significant at 5% level of significance (Tested against µ=0)

 The same trend was found in the farmers with land holding under vegetable cultivation>3

≤6 acres, with strong agreement being shown with the parameters like word of mouth, dealers

recommendation and own experience. All the factors were found to be significant at 5% level of

significance except print advertisement and salesman.

Table 4.32: Factors influencing buying decision of farmers with land holding >6 acres
(N=30)
parameters SA A N DA SDA Mean Standard t
score deviation
2 1 0 -1 -2 score

Print advertisement 0 13 3 11 3 -0.13 1.10 -0.65

T.V. commercials 0 0 0 11 19 -1.63 0.49 -18.22*

Word of mouth 15 15 0 0 0 1.50 0.50 16.13*

Salesman 0 13 14 2 1 0.30 0.74 2.18*

Dealers 20 10 0 0 0 1.67 0.48 19.01*

recommendation

Own experience 16 14 0 0 0 1.53 0.51 16.52*

Display at shop 0 14 14 2 0 0.40 0.62 3.52*

Signboards/hoardings 0 18 11 1 0 0.56 0.57 5.45*

University 7 17 4 2 0 0.96 0.80 6.53*

recommendations

* Significant at 5% level of significance (Tested against µ=0)

Same trend was seen in farmers with land holding> 6 acres under vegetable cultivation.

Table 4.33: Comparison of factors influencing the buying decision of the farmers of the
three land holding categories (N=90)
parameters Mean score of land Mean score>3 ≤6 Mean score>6 acres
holding≤3 acres acres

Print advertisement -0.13 -0.16 -0.13

T.V. commercials -1.56 -1.63 -1.63

Word of mouth 1.4.00 1.46 1.50

Salesman 0.16 0.20 0.30

Dealers recommendation 1.6.00 1.63 1.67

Own experience 1.6.00 1.53 1.53

Display at shop 0.26 0.40 0.40

Signboards/hoardings 0.36 0.53 0.56

University 0.80 0.90 0.96

recommendations
F value at 5%; (between columns) = 0.008

ANOVA was applied to know whether their was any significant difference in the
responses of the farmers of the three land holding categories and the calculated F- values was
found to be insignificant, showing no significant difference in the responses of the farmers of the
three land holding categories with respect to the factors affecting purchase decision of farmers.
4.2.9 Factors affecting choice of purchase point of farmers

The choice of purchase point depends on various factors like nearness, presence of better quality

products, behavior of salesman etc. The respondents were asked to show their level of agreement

or disagreement on a scale ranging from -2 to 2.

Table 4.34: Factors affecting choice of purchase point of farmers with land holding ≤3 acre
(N=30)
parameters SA A N DA SDA Mean Standard t score
score deviation
2 1 0 -1 -2

Nearness/convenience 0 9 8 11 2 -0.13 0.97 -0.74

Presence of better 21 9 0 0 0 1.70 0.47 19.95*

quality products

Attractive appearance 1 8 15 6 0 0.13 0.78 0.93

of shop

Behavior of Salesman 4 17 9 0 0 0.83 0.65 7.03*

Price variation 0 13 12 5 0 0.26 0.74 1.97

Presence of choicest 0 15 15 0 0 0.50 0.51 5.37*

brands

* Significant at 5% level of significance (Tested against µ=0)

In case of farmers with land holding≤3 acres under vegetable crops, strong agreement

was shown with the parameter presence of better quality products, with mean score 1.7. Farmers

seemed to be neutral to the parameters price variation and attractive appearance of shop.

Disagreement was shown to the parameter nearness/convenience. Factors presence of better

quality, behavior of salesman and presence of choicest brands were significant at 5% level of

significance.

Table 4.35: Factors affecting choice of purchase point of farmers with land holding >3 ≤6
acres (N=30)
parameters SA A N DA SDA Mean Standard t
score deviation
2 1 0 -1 -2 score

Nearness/convenience 0 7 7 12 4 -0.40 1.00 -2.18*

Presence of better 21 9 0 0 0 1.70 0.47 19.95*

quality products

Attractive appearance 1 8 14 7 0 0.10 0.80 0.68

of shop

Behavior of Salesman 7 16 7 0 0 1.00 0.69 7.87*

Price variation 0 13 12 5 0 0.26 0.74 1.97

Presence of choicest 0 17 13 0 0 0.56 0.50 6.15*

brands

Significant at 5% level of significance (Tested against µ=0)

 Incase farmers with land holding>3 ≤6 acres under vegetable cultivation same trend was

observed, with strong agreement being shown to the parameter presence of better quality

products (weighted mean score=1.7). Agreement was also shown with the parameter behavior of

salesman, while farmers seemed neutral to attractive appearance of shop and price variations.

Table 4.36: Factors affecting choice of purchase point of farmers with land holding >6
acres (N=30)
parameters SA A N DA SDA Mean Standard t score
score deviation
2 1 0 -1 -2

Nearness/convenience 0 7 8 12 3 -0.36 0.96 -2.07*

Presence of better 20 10 0 0 0 1.67 0.48 19.01*

quality products

Attractive appearance 1 8 14 7 0 0.10 0.80 0.68

of shop

Behavior of Salesman 7 16 7 0 0 1.00 0.69 7.87*

Price variation 0 15 11 4 0 0.30 0.75 2.18*

Presence of choicest 1 16 13 0 0 0.60 0.56 5.82*

brands

* Significant at 5% level of significance (Tested against µ=0) Same trend

was seen in the farmers with land holding >6 acres under vegetable crops.

All the factors were found to be significant at 5% level of significance except nearness and

attractive appearance of shop.

ANOVA was applied to know whether there was any significant difference in the

responses of the farmers of the three land holding categories.

Table 4.37: Comparison of factors affecting the choice of purchase point of the farmers of
the three land holding categories (N=90)
Parameters Mean score of land Mean score>3 ≤6 Mean score>6 acres
holding≤3 acres acres
Nearness/convenience -0.13 -0.40 -0.36
Presence of better quality 1.70 1.70 1.67
products
Attractive appearance of shop 0.13 0.10 0.10

Behavior of Salesman 0.83 1.00 1.00

Price variation 0.26 0.26 0.30
Presence of choicest brands 0.50 0.56 0.60

F value at 5%; (between columns) = 0.09

The calculated F- value for variation between the columns was found to be insignificant.

4.2.10 Farmers’ perception regarding brand, price and packaging

Brand, price and packaging are very important factors for the marketing of vegetable seeds.

Farmers were asked about different statements indicating their perception regarding brand, price

and packaging of vegetable seeds.

Table 4.38: Farmers’ perception regarding brand, price and packaging (farmers with land
holding≤3 under vegetable crops) (N=30)
Statements SA A N DA SDA Mean Std dev t
-2 score
2 1 0 -1 score

Well established brands 5 15 5 5 0 0.66 0.94 3.80*

are costlier than other
brands

Higher priced products are 0 18 12 0 0 0.60 0.49 6.58*

of better quality
Well established brands 0 20 10 0 0 0.67 0.47 7.60*
are of better quality

Lower price need not 8 15 7 0 0 1.03 0.70 7.86*

indicate lower quality

Good packaging reflects 0 13 9 8 0 0.167 0.82 1.09

better quality

* Significant at 5% level of significance (Tested against µ=0)

Respondents showed strong agreement with the statement that lower price did not

indicate lower quality. Respondents seemed to the statement that better packaging reflected

better quality. Responses to all the statements were found to be significant at 5% level of

significance except the statement “good packaging reflects better quality”.

Table 4.39: Farmers’ perception regarding brand, price and packaging (farmers with land
holding>3 ≤6 under vegetable crops) (N=30)
Statements SA A N DA SDA Mean Standard t
-2 score deviation
2 1 0 -1 score

Well established 5 12 7 6 0 0.53 0.99 2.89*

brands are costlier
than other brands

Higher priced products 0 19 11 0 0 0.63 0.48 7.06*

are of better quality

Well established 0 20 10 0 0 0.67 0.47 7.60*

brands are of better
quality

Lower price need not 8 15 7 0 0 1.03 0.70 7.86*

indicate lower quality

Good packaging 0 12 9 9 0 0.10 0.83 0.64

reflects better quality

* Significant at 5% level of significance (Tested against µ=0)

Among the farmers with land holding >3 ≤6 acres under vegetable crops same trend was seen.

The responses to all the statements were found to be significant except to the statement “good

packaging reflects better quality”.

Table 4.40: Farmers’ perception regarding brand, price and packaging (farmers with land
holding>6 under vegetable crops) (N=30)
Statements SA A N DA SDA Mean Standard t
-2 score deviation
2 1 0 -1 score

Well established 4 13 7 6 0 0.50 0.96 2.80*

brands are costlier than
other brands

Higher priced products 0 19 11 0 0 0.63 0.48 7.06*

are of better quality

Well established 4 17 9 0 0 0.83 0.64 7.03*

brands are of better
quality

Lower price need not 5 16 9 0 0 0.86 0.67 6.95*

indicate lower quality

Good packaging 3 10 8 9 0 0.50 0.89 3.03*

reflects better quality

* Significant at 5% level of significance (Tested against µ=0)

Table 4.40. shows that farmers showed agreement to the statements “well-established brands are of
better quality” and “lower price need not indicate lower quality, while they were almost neutral to all
other statements. Responses to all the statements were found to be significant.
Table 4.41: Comparison of perception regarding brand, price and packaging of the farmers of the three
land holding categories (N=90)

parameters Mean score of land Mean score >3 ≤6 Mean score >6 acres
holding ≤3 acres acres

Well established brands are 0.66 0.53 0.50

costlier than other brands
Higher priced products are of 0.60 0.63 0.63
better quality
Well established brands are 0.67 0.67 0.83
of better quality
Lower price need not indicate 1.03 1.03 0.86
lower quality

Good packaging reflects 0.167 0.10 0.50

better quality
F value at 5%; (between columns) = 0.08