1. MARKETING
10th MARCH 2018
BRAND AND MARKETING

2. Current Brand Registration
CONVERSION REMAINS WEAK LINK
Future Disposition
Current Brand Registration
Total Awareness
Purchased L6M
Future Consideration
Most Preferred W1 W2 70 80 19 W1 W2 47 9 7
Fabindia 27 23 18 14
Lifestyle 99 98 68 61 90 87 35 29 69 62 39 34
Shoppers
Stop 98 97 63 56 90 87 26 25 64 58 29 28
Biba 83 87 29 32 62 58 13 15 34 37 20 25
As seen earlier, brands like Lifestyle, Shoppers stop and Biba lead Fabindia on awareness (both unaided & total) and the same effect is seen on recent purchases and future consideration.
Source: Brand Track Wave 1 & 2 (GFK), May & Nov’17; Base: All (820); Age group 25 – 45 yrs

3. FABINDIA WEAK ON IMPORTANT DRIVERS
Of 11 attributes which are key to driving consideration and/or preference, Fabindia is positively differentiated on only 2
On design, fits and prices we are undifferentiated if not slightly negative in the minds of consumers, compared to competition
Fabindia
Lifestyle
Shoppers Stop
Biba
Westside
Khadi India
Good quality fabric -1 4 1 2 -3
Variety of fit options -2 3
Unique design
Clothes only made from natural products -7 6
Right fit
For stylish people -4
Offers just right prices
For those proud of traditions -6
Hand-crafted/ Traditional skills 8
Cordial/ helpful store staff -5
New range regularly
Relatively important driver for both Consideration & Preference
Relatively important driver for Preference
Relatively important driver for Consideration
Source: Brand Track Wave 1 & 2 (GFK), May & Nov’17; Base: All (820); Age group 25 – 45 yrs

4. 58% respondents have issues with price
RETAIL BROWSERS ARE NOT WILLING TO PAY OUR PRICES
58% of respondents have an issue with pricing
46% say garments are expensive / overpriced for the offering
Price perceptions of being “expensive” are reflecting across genders & ages (see table on left below)
South is far more price-sensitive than the rest of India (see table on right below)
58% respondents have issues with price
Base: All respondents (5,740)
Figures in %
Any issue on price
Base 
5,740
Less than 18 years 58
18 – 25 years
26 – 35 years
36 – 45 years 55
46 – 55 years 60
56 years and above 63
Figures in %
Any issue on price
Base 
5,740
North 58
South 67
East
West 50
Base: 3,779 responses citing Price; multiple selections possible
Base: All respondents (5,740)
Source: In-store Browsers (Non-Shoppers) Q’re Wave 2, Dec’17; Question 5 on Pricing

5. THEY FIND OUR COLLECTIONS LACKING VARIETY / FRESHNESS
47% of consumers say they don’t find enough variety
A further 12% complain about a lack of freshness
No difference in demand for Contemporary vs Classic silhouettes. No differences seen across age groups either (refer table below).
This ‘lack of variety’ seems to be about the difficulty in Discovery at our stores + us being benchmarked against ever-increasing design variety at other brands
55% respondents have issues with Product
Base: All respondents (5,740)
Base: 2,660 responses citing Design/Style; multiple selections possible
Figures in %
All
Seeking Contemporary Styles
Seeking Classic Styles
Base 
5,740
468
614
Less than 18 years 1
18 – 25 years 12 13 11
26 – 35 years 39 40 42
36 – 45 years 31 32 28
46 – 55 years
56 years and above 4 3 5
VERBATIMS
“You mostly get to see the same colours” |“Same options are displayed every time” | “Do not repeat the same designs” | “I want the latest designs”
Base: All respondents (5,740)
Source: In-store Browsers (Non-Shoppers) Q’re Wave 2, Dec’17; Question 1 & 2 on Design & Style + Fits & Sizes

6. 55% respondents have issues with Product
THEY DIDN’T FIND THEIR SIZE IN WHAT THEY LIKED
32% said they didn’t find their size though they liked a product – size set issues. This is a loss of sale that could be plugged quite quickly.
22% are unhappy with the sizing / fits - body block issues
Demand for “Slim Fits” is higher (27%) than that for “Regular Fits” (19%) – a new reality that is also reflecting in the wider market
The choice of Slim Fit is higher across most age groups (refer table below)
55% respondents have issues with Product
Base: All respondents (5,740)
Figures in %
Seeking Slim Fits
Seeking Regular Fits
Less than 18 years
13.4
9.8
18 – 25 years
13.8
4.1
26 – 35 years
12.7
7.8
36 – 45 years
10.6
7.9
46 – 55 years
7.2
9.6
56 years and above
9.5
Base: 2,340 responses citing Fits/Sizes; multiple selections possible
Base: 2,340 responses citing Fits/Sizes; multiple selections possible
Source: In-store Browsers (Non-Shoppers) Q’re Wave 2, Dec’17; Question 1 & 2 on Design & Style + Fits & Sizes

7. 18% respondents have issues with Store
STORE DISPLAY MAKES DISCOVERY & SHOPPING DIFFICULT
18% respondents have an issue with either store display or experience
36% respondents said that there was not enough hanging display – this has a direct impact on how much variety they see at first glance
26% found it difficult to locate what they wanted with a further 17% saying the shelves were too crowded
There is no difference between the Female & Male respondents meaning that for all garment categories, store layout needs to be looked at
18% respondents have issues with Store
Base: All respondents (5,740)
Figures in %
All
Female
Male
Base 
674
457
217
Not enough hanging display 36 37
Difficult to locate what I want 26 27 24
Layout & navigation is confusing 20 19 21
Shelves are too crowded 17 18
Base: 678 responses citing Store Display; multiple selections possible
Base: 678 responses citing Store Display; multiple selections possible
Source: In-store Browsers (Non-Shoppers) Q’re Wave 2, Dec’17; Question 6 & 7 on Store Display + Store Experience

8. YOUNGER, CURRENT NON-USERS, ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH FABINDIA
1/3rd of the consumers have stated that they know the brand only by name
Causing misattribution of some categories & lack of awareness of others
e.g. Males claim FI sells t-shirts & jeans
e.g. OF PC are very low in awareness
29% feel we are “overpriced”
26% say there’s no store close to them – our presence online could help their distribution concerns, considering ~50% of both genders shop online
Source: Aware Non-Trier Quant research, Oct’17; Base: 3,583 respondents; Age group 22 – 35 yrs

9. Bottlenecks: Brand, Product, Price & Retail
SUMMARY : REASONS FOR NON-PURCHASE
CURRENT CUSTOMERS
Brand Track, Needscope, CWC, Store-administered
VISITORS – BROWSE BUT NOT SHOP
Internal/Store-administered; Sample: 5,740
AWARE, NON-CUSTOMERS
External/GFK; Sample: 3,883, 22-25/26-30/31-35
Bottlenecks: Product, Price & Retail
#1. BRAND: None
#2. PRODUCT: Design predictability, innovation, Not contemporary / “On-Trend”, Silhouettes, Size (availability, non-standard)
#3. PRICE: Overpriced & not value for money
#4. RETAIL: Crowded shelves, “very mass”, Navigation, non-uniform product assortment
Bottlenecks: Product, Price & Retail (80%)
#1: BRAND: None
#2: PRODUCT: Variety + freshness (38+6%), Size availability (13%), Fits (Slim) (19%), Non-standard sizing (4%)
#3: PRICE: Discounts (36%), Overpriced for what is offered (28%)
#4: RETAIL: Hanging displays (4%), Difficult to locate (3%), Crowded shelves (2%), Navigation (2%) Exchange policy (8%), Staff quality (2%)
Bottlenecks: Brand, Product, Price & Retail
#1: BRAND: Low familiarity – don’t know what the brand stands for; Only legacy knowledge (33%)
#2: PRODUCT: Variety + freshness (14+10%), Innovation (11%), Silhouettes (10%), Size availability (11%), Fits (Slim) (10%)
#3: PRICE: Overpriced for what is offered (29%), Buy other brands cheaper (20%), Discounts (18%)
#4: RETAIL: Lack of store close by (26%)  Stores not located in high-visibility locations with malls & on high streets
Bottlenecks: Product, Price & Retail
Bottlenecks: Product, Price & Retail
Bottlenecks: Brand, Product, Price & Retail