Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU) 2006 M.B.A Business Administration - I - SALES AND ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT - Question Paper

M.B.A.(Third) DEGREE EXAMINATION, MAY 2006
(B-Marketing Management)
PAPER - I - SALES AND ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT

Time: 3 hours Maximum: 75 marks

part A - (3 X five = 15 marks)
ans any 3 ques.

1. (a) Selling skills. (b) Definition of sales management
(c) Line Organisation (d) Performance appraisal.
(e) Media use. (f) Cost analysis.

part B - (3 X 15 = 45 marks)
ans any 3 ques.

2. define the process of selling and discuss its importance.
3. discuss the different methods of compensating sales force.
4. discuss the steps for setting up sales organisation and explain the different kinds of sales organisation.
5. explain the promotional scenario in India.
6. discuss the process of planning and scheduling media and communication process.
7. How to manage agency - client relations? Critically evaluate in Indian situation.

part C - (15 marks)
CASE STUDY

8. CARTER OIL COMPANY
Manufacturer of Petroleum Products -
Evaluating performance of Sales Personnel.

Carter Oil Company was a regional producer of oil products located in Midland, Texas, Selling gasoline, fuel oil and related products under the Carter brand. Total sales in 1985 were in excess of $ one billion. Carter’s sales organisation was comprised of full-line sales personnel who sold in 5 districts throughout most of Southern and Southwestern United States. The full-line sales people sold to oil wholesalers, distributors, commercial users and domestic fuel oil consumers. The sales force was responsible for developing all new accounts. Carter sales personnel were evaluated according to a single criterion - sales quantity.

District sales managers determined every salesperson’s quantity from the weekly sales reports. every report showed the previous week’s sales, both in amount and percentage of total purchases by name of account. The district managers summarized the sales reports into monthly and annual summary sales reports. The amount and percentage of gain or loss was shown on both the monthly and annual summary sales reports. The amount and percentage of gain or loss was shown on both the monthly and annual reports. In addition, every salesperson’s sales quantity performance was compared with that of other sales personnel in the district and region. Finally, every salesperson’s sales quantity was compared with his or her output the previous year and the pattern of his or her sales quantity was shown over the past several years.

Jack Binswonger had recently been promoted from manager of the New Orleans district to vice-president of sales. When he was district manager, he had believed that the method of evaluating sales performance based solely on sales quantity was an inaccurate appraisal of a person’s effectiveness. He felt it was especially unfair to the salespeople who spent a portion of their time assisting dealers with issues such as special promotions, inventory control, merchandising and administration activities that had no direct effect on sales. He also believed that valuation based on sales quantity alone ignored a few fairly wide differences in the sales potential of individual territories. He obtained support for his long-held opinions in an article in the May 1985 edition of the Journal of Marketing Research, which reported that sales executives in a sample learned tended to evaluate their salespeople solely on the basis of effort exerted with no adjustment for differences in the difficulty of the task (as measured by differences in territorial potential).

As a outcome of the deficiencies he saw, Binswonger suggested that the current method of personnel valuation should be supplemented by a merit-rating plan. This plan would incorporate such factors as work habits; effectiveness in merchandising work; cooperation with management, dealers and other sales personnel ; promotability; and differences in territory potential. The meritrating plan, its objectives and procedural aspects, was presented to all the district managers at a meeting in Dallas in June.

The district managers would rate the salespeople semiannually; then Jack Binswonger would review the ratings. The numerical scores assigned to every performance factor (which had not yet been determined). would be totaled to yield a merits score for every salesperson. Finally, district sales managers would explain this appraisal with every salesperson, counseling on strengths and weaknesses and making suggestions for improvement. And, before the plan was put into operation, every district manager would discuss the new valuation method to the salespeople in the district.

Reaction to Binswonger.s proposal was mixed. Bill Schultz, manager of the Atlanta district, was strongly opposed to the idea. He thought the new method of valuation was too complex and hence, too time consuming for the district manager. He also thought the sales. personnel would be unhappy with an valuation system that was based on so many subjective factors. He argued that salespeople would feel that ratings were based on personal favoritism and other non-objective factors over which they had no control.

Was the Carter Oil Company’s current method for evaluating personnel performance adequate?

How can Binswonger ans Schultz. objections?

Earning:   Approval pending.