S A D C Study

Business Services for Small Enterprises in Asia: Developing
Markets and Measuring Performance

International Conference
Hanoi, Vietnam - April 3-6, 2000
m - , 2000

Marketing and Development
An Effective Strategy for Poverty alleviation with and through the private sector
Draft of a study of 5 SDC projects in Asia and Latin America

By
Urs Heierli

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

Sponsors

German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Mekong Project Development Facility (MPDF)
Committee of Donor Agencies for Small Enterprise Development

Marketing and Development

An effective strategy for poverty

alleviation with and through the

private sector

Draft of a study of 5 SDC projects in Asia and Latin America

By Urs Heierli, 14th January 2000

Abstract

The market creation approach to development is a strategy which combines two aims:

• To supply to poor people useful and affordable products with a high poverty alleviation impact
and
• To create a viable business as a private delivery channel, preferably run by poor people.

In the market creation approach to development, there are 3 key elements:

a) need-based product development for products with a high impact on poverty alleviation,
putting the accent on affordability and high returns on investment;
b) the promotion and marketing of these products, so that the poor can learn about their
existence and
c) the creation of a market for these products to the extent that it becomes viable for the
private sector to deliver these products as a business.

This paper contains an analysis of 5 programmes of SDC; it looks at their impact and at the
profitability of their respective delivery channels. The methodology followed is to scrutinise these
projects with the eyes of a marketing professional and to discuss the 4 Ps of marketing.

In the study „do’s and don’ts“ of donors in supporting the market creation approach to development
are presented as well as the main roles and guiding principles for funding such programmes.

Possible improvements for marketing strategies are also presented, showing especially how one can
increase the presently low profits in the supply channel.

Finally, institutional issues are discussed, including how the market creation approach to development
can be replicated on a larger scale and how partnership between governments, NGOs and the corporate
sector can emerge.

Treadle Pumps, Private
Bangladesh
The market creation approach to development 1
Introduction: Poverty alleviation as a business for the poor............................................................ 1
The conventional development approach ............................................................................................. 1
The BDS approach for micro-enterprise promotion............................................................................. 2
The market creation approach: poverty alleviating products made and sold as a private business.... 2
The 4 Ps of marketing........................................................................................................................ 3
Product: more than just “hardware” ................................................................................................... 3
Price: the art of pricing ........................................................................................................................ 4
Place: The supply channel.................................................................................................................... 4
Promotion: Creating awareness about the product.............................................................................. 5
Market creation and donor funding.................................................................................................. 6
Obstacles in creating a market in favor of the poor ............................................................................. 6
Why does the private sector not create the markets on their own? ...................................................... 6
Phases of the product-cycle and effects over market creation.............................................................. 7
The big kick which leads from introduction to maturation................................................................... 9
The performance of the market creation approach: ........................................................................ 9
Impact and reach-out............................................................................................................................ 9
Efficiency: very high returns on donor money.................................................................................... 10
Effectiveness: Can some products make a difference to the poor?..................................................... 11
Market creation approach and poverty alleviation ............................................................................ 11
Sustainability and promotion: Partnerships with the corporate sector and win-win situations ........ 12
Part 2: Analysis of 5 examples...............................................................................13
Example Nr. 1: 100 million trees as a social insurance................................................................... 13
Example Nr. 2: pedalling out of poverty with the treadle pump.................................................... 13
Example Nr. 3: 60 kilograms more maize per family with “Postcosecha” silos............................. 14
Example Nr. 4: The network of roofing tiles workshops ................................................................ 14
Example Nr. 5: Making a business out of latrine production......................................................... 15
Open questions and discussion..............................................................................16
How to fund market creation projects? Methodological issues for donors.................................... 16
The main roles or “rules of the game” in creating markets............................................................... 16
Micro-concrete
Do’s and Don’ts for donors and facilitators ...................................................................................... 17
Do donors create artificial or sustainable markets? ......................................................................... 17
roofing tiles, global
What should the donors fund? ............................................................................................................ 18
Time frame for support: 10 years and more ....................................................................................... 19
The disliking of marketing in development: why are donors not jumping in?.................................... 19
How to improve marketing strategies? Issues for project implementers....................................... 20
Key problem Nr. 1: How to make the supply channel more profitable? ............................................ 20
Private Forestry,
Product ranges and mixes: hardware or software? ........................................................................... 21
Bangladesh
Financing: linking up with financial institutions................................................................................ 21
What kind of institutions are needed? Institutional issues ............................................................. 21
Who can be a good facilitator?........................................................................................................... 21
Partnership with the corporate sector ................................................................................................ 22
Synthesis and conclusions ......................................................................................22

______________________________________The market creation approach to development

The market creation approach to development

Introduction: Poverty alleviation as a business for the poor

is a strategy which combines two aims: Focus of the study:
• To supply to poor people useful and The topic of this study is not export marketing or
affordable products with a high poverty fair trade: this study is focused on the creation of
alleviation impact and a market for products which are useful to the
• To create a viable business as a private poor and allow them to get out of the poverty
delivery channel, preferably run by poor trap.
people.
The study considers six such examples and shows
In development co-operation, other how trees, treadle pumps, rope pumps, maize
approaches are also dealing with opening silos, roofing tiles and latrines can make a
markets, but they are quite different: difference to the poor.

Trade and export promotion seeks to open up In this sense, it is a “product” approach, and
markets for existing products in new regions; marketing is used to achieve large-scale
Transportation projects (feeder roads, dissemination and a big reach-out.
suspension bridges, road construction in
general) aim at stimulating trade and opening
up markets – again for existing products – in
new regions.

In the market creation approach to development there are 3 key elements:

• need-based product development, for products with a high impact on poverty alleviation,
stressing on affordability and high returns on investment;
• the promotion and marketing of these products so that the poor can learn about their existence;
and
• the creation of a market for these products to the extent that it becomes viable for the private
sector to deliver these products as a business.
The conventional development approach

Conventional development approaches aim at partnerships with government departments or NGOs (or
a combination of both), with the objective to deliver a good or service to the “target population”.
Funds from a donor are channelled to the beneficiaries through these partnerships. Many of these
approaches focus on the delivery of inputs or non-tangible services through public infrastructure,

Donor Government Beneficiaries
NGO

The conventional development approach

rather than on their provision directly to individual persons, thus these inputs are spread out more
evenly among the population.

1


Very often, this delivery channel is highly subsidised: the “beneficiaries” may be asked to contribute
in terms of fees, but in reality, it is often not possible to recover the cost from the “target population”.

The BDS approach for micro-enterprise promotion

“Donors and governments view the growth of small enterprises as critical to coping with the
challenges posed by rising unemployment. For at least two decades, therefore, donors have been
supporting the provision of non-financial services, or ‘Business Development Services’ (BDS), for
small enterprise development. These services include training and counselling, as well as services to
improve access to appropriate technology, information and markets.

In most cases, the services have been delivered with large subsidies, and cost recovery has only been a
secondary issue. Recently, however, it has been acknowledged that this situation is unsustainable;
small enterprises require continued support to meet changing and ongoing business development
needs, while donor funds are finite. There is, therefore, increasing interest now in how BDS might be
provided on a sustainable basis.”1

Donor
The Business Development Services approach

Government or Private BDS
NGO as implementor facilitators and Micro-Enterprises
providers

The BDS approach is focusing on setting up a private market for BDS providers who would deliver
training, counselling and technology. They would recover their costs by charging fees to the micro-
enterprises for their services.
The market creation approach: poverty alleviating products made and sold as a private
business

The market creation approach to development observes the BDS principles but goes beyond that.
Whereas a BDS concept would let the “market” or micro-enterprises choose their products, the market
creation approach emphasises on specific products which have a high poverty alleviation impact.

One of the weaknesses of small enterprises in developing countries is the lack of capacity to innovate
and the technology dualism of micro-enterprises.2 The focus of the market creation approach to
development is therefore on the following 3 areas:

Need-based product development
Marketing and promotion.
The creation of a sustainable market

2


Donors
and implementing organisations
• Product development
• Market creation
• Promotion and marketing
BDS facilitators and BDS
providers support the supply
channel with (paid) services)

Product must be
poverty alleviating and
need to make
needsto make produce high returns
profit

Private sector delivery channel
• manufacturers,
Clients
(poor people)
• dealers and agents
(can be small enterprises but links to
corporate sector are possible)

The delivery of goods and services is taken care of by a private delivery channel, comprising ideally of
micro-enterprises; however, some activities in the channel may be linked to the corporate sector. In
this paper, the involvement of the corporate sector in so-called “public-private partnerships” is even
advocated for.

Marketing is the key strategy of this approach, it is thus quite logical to follow some basic principles,
orientations and experiences from the world of marketing, especially the 4 Ps, as described in detail in
the next chapter.

The 4 Ps of marketing

We are using the well-known 4 Ps of marketing as an analytical tool: 3

Product what is the product or service exactly?

Price how much does it cost?

Place where can I buy it?

Promotion how do I make the product known?

Product: more than just “hardware”

3


To understand what the product is may not be so trivial as it looks at first glance. Classical
development co-operation has been long dominated by a “supply side” approach: Times may have
changed now, but in the early days of development co-operation, it was even suspicious to promote a
product which looked good: products for the poor should look poor, they should be simple, very much
in line with Henry Ford’s saying: “you can have it in all colours, provided it is black”. I think, we must
learn that people, and especially poor people, have aspirations and feelings which we should take
seriously. When the director of a samba school in Rio de Janeiro was asked: “why do (poor) people
spend so much money on these costumes for the Carnival?”, he replied: “you know, you rich people
may adore poverty, but we poor people, we love luxury!”.

What is the difference between a watch and a Rolex, or between a computer and an „I-Mac“?
Good products are not only rational and useful tools to do something; good products stand for a
lifestyle, they translate feelings and values.

The definition of the product is highly relevant in the 5 examples given below: for example, is the
product a tree which gives fodder, fuel or fruits? Or is it before everything an asset, a savings scheme,
a social insurance? These are crucial questions: it is still the same tree, but consists of an entirely
different product as it is perceived by the customer.

In addition, and as mentioned already before, the products must be affordable and have high returns on
investment and a significant impact on poverty alleviation.

Price: the art of pricing

Pricing is an art and needs a lot of intuition.

The price can be too high = no sales
The price can be too low = no profit

For the poor, products are extremely price elastic, i.e. a relatively low price increase can have a
considerable impact on the reduction of sales. This sensitivity to prices means that quality (connected
to higher prices) is not a universal criteria for purchase by the poor. In the case of the treadle pump,
farmer often prefer to buy cheaper pumps even if they are of lower quality and durability. This is by
no means an argument for giving a low priority to quality: to the contrary, the poor deserve the best
quality. However, one needs to consider the price elasticity as well, and it is finally the customer
which sets the quality standards.

In order to make the supply channel profitable despite the described reality, price differentiation is
very important: As we can see from one of the examples below, a red micro-concrete tile can fetch 7 $,
whereas a grey tile may only be sold at the break-even price of 4 $. Increased quality and value
addition may rise prices considerably as we shall see in the example of village forestry.

With respect to the market of the poor, another intricacy is the “entry-price” which needs to be low.
For poor people, cash is such a precious good that they often buy in very small quantities, although
they pay more in the long run. The art of marketing to the poor is to pack the goods in very small
units: a rural retail shop will sell cigarettes by the piece, shampoo by the “sachet” and beer by the
glass.

Place: The supply channel

Even professional marketers sometimes ask themselves why intermediaries are needed. An
intermediary is a cost factor and needs a profit margin or a commission. However, sales through a

4


local dealer or representative are often more effective and even more cost-effective than direct sales.
Distributors and dealers are closer to the clients than the manufacturer, and their marketing costs may
be lower. A strong supply channel is one of the best assets, a company can have, and investing in the
loyalty of dealers is a very crucial task of marketing.

Additionally, many people involved in development co-operation have an ideological problem with
intermediaries, since many initiatives are targeting middlemen as potential sources of exploitation. The
role of dealers and agents needs to be revised, especially under the criteria of effectiveness and justice.
A good supply channel needs profit margins to sustain itself and be effective.

Quite often, a dealer provides additional services to the customer such as after sales service, stocking
of spare parts, etc. Sometimes, dealers also provide credit to their customers because they know the
people in the village.

Promotion: Creating awareness about the product

Promotion is more than advertising, it implies a two-way communication with the customers. Mass
media play an important role in promotion. Rural customers, especially, need to see what they want to
buy. They never buy anything which they have not seen in operation, or – even better – which their
neighbour has not yet already bought. For this reason, demonstrations represent the most important
tool for promotion.

Early adopters belong to the village elite and the poor are late followers, since they want to avoid all
risks. Often, the poor are late buyers, because they are short of cash and must have more time to
collect enough funds.

Promotion is very difficult in rural areas: on the one hand, attending a farmers’ fair (“mela”) may
reach ten thousand farmers at the same time, on the other hand, geographical distance and lower
population density may make it a costly affair.

One issue is how to sustain promotion. Development co-operation can and should support good
promotional efforts with mass media, films, posters, etc. It is difficult to sustain it, but promotion that
is not continuously repeated fades out; Coca Cola is nowadays known to everybody, but if it were not
continuously advertised, customers would even forget Coca Cola and remember the brand of the
competitors better.

Another intricacy is the difficulty to include promotional costs in the price of investment goods; it
seems easier to promote consumer goods. To add a few cents for promotion on each bottle or each
sachet is less visible than adding a hefty amount to the cost of an investment good. If the price of an
investment good were to become much higher than its cost, the incentive to copy would be increased.
Moreover, the nature of investment goods does not allow for repeat sales.

In order to finance promotion on a sustainable basis, development co-operation should seek links to
the corporate sector and tie up the products to their supply channel: These companies may have a long-
term interest in promotion if they can sell preferably small amounts on a regular basis to new
customers (like cement companies with roofing tiles, agro-input companies with micro-irrigation, etc.).

5


Market creation and donor funding

Obstacles in creating a market in favor of the poor

There are several obstacles which make the market development in favour of the poor a tricky and
cumbersome task:

Many attitudes of the poor are such that they are not attractive customers in the short run: they turn
their penny many times before they spend it; they buy only in small quantities, and it may be quite
tough and harsh to develop these markets.
Poor customers are very conservative and – by nature – risk-avoiding. Conservatism, especially in
rural areas, is notorious: a market is only created after some early adopters have taken it up, and after
many followers have seen and tested it… Then only, will the whole mindset change and the critical
mass will be there to allow the private sector to supply products profitably. We shall elaborate further
on this phenomenon when we discuss the AIDA model (see below). But one has to distinguish
between a few early adopters and the many followers.
Quite often, there are also cultural and other barriers which hamper the development of markets for
innovative products. In many regions, for example, it is culturally not accepted that women would use
bicycles or go to the market. Or, the absence of a regular electricity supply is one of the constraints for
marketing electric appliances.
Another reason why these markets are underserved is the urban bias of many marketing efforts.
This may start with the fact that marketing managers prefer to live and work in an environment which
they know, where they can send their children to good schools, etc. There is a strong bias towards
urban mainstream marketing 4 and there is also a strong bias towards “marketing to the affluent”: One
can find several best-sellers with this title 5, but I could not trace one single book about “marketing to
the poor”.
The poor can not afford to buy big quantities. The most revolutionary marketing idea for rural
markets is the “sachet”, a tiny portion packaging, which allows selling small quantities for an
affordable price. It is an irony that a poor person may pay several times more when buying small
quantities rather than the “jumbo pack” which rich people can afford. This reflects the fact that it is
more expensive to market to the rural poor, smaller quantities make the products accessible to people
who have little cash.

Why does the private sector not create the markets on their own?

The private sector will only step in, if the volume of goods sold allow a profitable supply chain.
Initially, it is therefore justified to subsidise market development. Market development is even a
good investment for development co-operation agencies, provided they do it correctly. But, why does
the private sector not invest in market development on its own? Individual enterprises may invest in
products for the poor, but generally only once the market has reached a significant size.

The examples given below show how one can create a market for products – latrines and trees are
typical for this – which were not accepted before, even when given free of cost. The efforts necessary
to create a market for such products, such as latrines, trees, treadle pumps, silos and roofing tiles or
rope pumps, should not been underestimated. It may require 5 to 10 years, but once there is a
significant demand, the private sector develops almost on its own.

Market creation is a typical task of marketing, and the corporate sector does it all the time. However,
the small private sector does not invest in activities such as:

research and product development;
setting-up of marketing and supply channels;
large-scale promotion activities leading to the creation of a market.

6


The reason is that the private sector cannot recover these costs, because it is difficult to defend the
exclusivity of the product.

This is especially so if we talk about simple investment goods or durable goods, because they may
be immediately copied by others. The market provides little protection against copying: the patent
protection is not effective and the brand protection may not be existent either.

Of course, copying is also a danger for any product, be it sweets, beer, soft drinks or even investment
goods. The conventional strategy against copying is to distinguish the product from others by
branding, but also by applying high-tech features. In our cases, this is neither possible nor desirable. In
our examples, the success comes exactly from being copied and from giving opportunities to small
enterprises to produce and sell them.

For consumables, the situation is different: branded products like soft-drinks, cigarettes, sweets, chips,
etc. are all very well marketed and the corporate sector has managed to create a market for them.
Consumer goods can be sold in small quantities but regularly; this makes it easier to add a tiny
percentage on each “sachet” to recover the promotion and marketing cost. For investment goods which
are more costly and where repeat sales are not possible, this is much more difficult: if one adds a
percentage to an investment good for promotion cost, it is an invitation for a competitor to undercut
the machine with a cheaper copy. This is the main reason why consumer goods have penetrated rural
markets to a larger extent than investment goods.

A good example for this is the promotion of gas and/or electric stoves in Europe and America: both
were heavily promoted by the gas and the electricity companies, not by the stove-makers. The gas
company has an interest to invest in promotion of a gas stove, because once a household switches to
gas, it will remain a customer for many years. Till today, the gas and electricity companies offer very
good cooking classes in Switzerland, free of cost. One single household converting to either one of the
fuels pays every month a tiny little fee back to the company for this training course. But how could
one do this for the promotion of energy saving wood-stoves?

Phases of the product-cycle and effects over market creation

How does a market creation approach work over time? We have introduced different parameters in the
following graph6:

the sales curve
the profit curve
the number of micro-enterprises that join the supply channel and
the poverty alleviation effect (in terms of number of clients, income generated, etc.)

In the marketing theory about the product cycle, it is well known that all products undergo
four different phases:

In the R&D phase sales are zero, and only prototypes are produced and tested.
In the introduction phase the product needs to be test marketed. During the R&D phase and the
introduction phase, even a corporate sector company makes losses. The marketing channel is
developing slowly, those who join the channel (as manufacturers or dealers) are the “scouts”, the
pathfinders / pioneers. However, some poverty alleviation is already taking place with every product
sold.
In the maturation phase, the market takes up and demonstration effects lead to higher sales and
higher profits; if the market pioneers can recover the introduction cost from the channel, more and
more units join the channel; the “troops” of dealers and manufacturers will play safer than the
pioneers. The poverty alleviation effect is now reaching its peak (cumulative effects of all adopters).
In the saturation phase, the sales of the promoted product are declining, profits too, and some units
even withdraw. The withdrawal strategy should now define how to sustain the channel, by introducing

7


new products or moving to new markets. The poverty alleviation effect remains at the same high level
thanks to the cumulative adopters.

Sales usually start very slowly and do not take up in the introductory phase. In our case, since there is
a need for thorough R&D and participatory product development, R&D and introductory phase may
last between 5 and 10 years. The losses occurred in this phase may not be recovered with the
product later on, as it is difficult to achieve an exclusivity like a product developed by the corporate

Effects of the product cycle on
+ • sales
• profits Poverty
• small enterprises (dealers, manuf. alleviation
• poverty alleviation effect

sales

nr. of units

0 profit

time (years)
losses

-
R&D phase: Introduction Maturation phase: Saturation
phase: Promotion phase:
product Test marketing Mainstreaming withdrawal
development, Setting up Consolidation channel: strategy
sales are zero channel:
„troops“ join new markets
“scouts” join

sector. The R&D costs may be borne by development agencies or donors, but it may in future be
possible to develop products – for example the solar lantern described below – which may also recover
the investments in the introduction phase.

In the maturation phase, sales are going up steadily and the focus is brought on the development of the
delivery channel. As the channel development is linked to micro-enterprise promotion, this process
may also be a relatively slow one, and it is often worth including poor people with entrepreneurial
spirit into the channel. For instance, there is hardly a better target group to be found than “core

8


farmers” to run nurseries. Dealers and mistries, latrine producers or “artesanos” are preferably poor
local people.

In the saturation phase, a withdrawal strategy for the initially promoted product must be applied by
introducing new products which make the channel sustainable and which can even take care of the
further expansion or at least keep it where it should be. During the withdrawal strategy, one should
analyze the market thoroughly and find ways to increase value in the supply channel or to cut the cost
of distribution. This can include linking the product to corporate sector marketing channels or trying to
organize the producers and dealers in associations. The withdrawal strategy should also look at product
diversification and the introduction of new products; moving in to new markets should also be
studied.

The time lag of a market creation approach can be extremely long, and sometimes, success occurs long
after one has withdrawn: during my field trip in Honduras I met a hardware shop-owner who is
supplying chimneys for the ”Lorena stove” in the “Yoro” region. Apparently, a market has been
created for such chimneys, as they are sold by the thousands. How has this happened? I learnt that the
“Lorena stoves” had bee introduced by SDCs “integrated rural development project” which is already
closed for more than 8 years. I then met a lady who had rebuilt a Lorena stove in her house, just two
months ago, and she had learnt the technique in this project.

The big kick which leads from introduction to maturation

In the initial phase, the supply channel is still the responsibility of a few pioneers, and sales are
modest. In this phase, the market creation may need a kick to bring it into a more dynamic gear.
Without such a “kick”, the channel may well remain “lethargic”. This has again to do with the
phenomenon of the scouts and the troops: “Research on the new product diffusion process based on a
study of consumer electronics retailers found that there are two types of retailers: scouts (innovators)
and troops (followers). The classification is based on the extent to which one retailer influences others.
Scouts are the first retailers to adopt a new product. They are likely to commit themselves to a new
product or commit themselves to a new product through a small order. On the other hands, troops
purchase a product only when scouts experience satisfactory sales levels.”7

There are more than enough examples of development products which have never even reached the
“scout stage”, and very few which have really managed to scale up to the stage of maturity and mass
dissemination. How have they managed to reach maturation the introductory phase?

For example in the case of the treadle pump, the product received a “big kick” from the “Bangladesh
Tobacco Company” in Rangpur, which sold the pump to their contract farmers on a loan basis and
recovered the money through the purchases of tobacco. In the case of the latrines in Bangladesh, it was
the “social mobilization campaign” which led to the critical mass which is necessary for troops to join
the market channel.

The performance of the market creation approach:

Impact and reach-out

Market creation programmes can have a very high impact and reach out to an impressive number of
beneficiaries or – more precisely – clients. The ultimate success of a market creation approach is a new
constellation in the market, which gives room for a viable supply channel for the new products and
thus creates both employment on the supply side and consumer satisfaction on the demand side. To
create a new market is not an easy task and it may not always happen, even if everything has been
planned to perfection.

9


One of the best examples of a market creation approach with a very large development impact is the
AMUL experience in India, the setting up of milk co-operatives which have considerably changed the
rural landscape. “Operation Flood” started in 1970 and had the specific target to organise 10 million

Performance indicators for the projects

Project Input in $ Output in $ Reach-out
__________________ _______________________ ____________________________ _______________________

Forestry ~ 7 m $ in 15 min 90 m $ /yr 650'000 families
Bangladesh years (net present value)
__________________ _______________________ ____________________________ _______________________

Treadle Pump ~ 7 m $ in 15 min. 100 m $ / yr min. 1 m families
Bangladesh years (farmers profit)
__________________ _______________________ ____________________________ _______________________

Maize Silos 12 m $ in 18 min. 6 m $ / yr min. 170'000
Central Amer. years (savings + profits) families
__________________ ____________________________ _______________________
_______________________

Roofing tiles 12-16 m $ / yr. + 150'000 new
7 –10 m $ in 15
(global) Cheaper materials families per year
years ____________________________
_______________________
__________________ _______________________

min. 8 m $ / yr + 1,2 m new
Latrines ~ 10 m $ (social families per year
Bangladesh mobilisation) (savings in health)

farmers in 30’000 villages and to bring them into the supply channel for milk products which were
marketed by AMUL throughout the country. The charismatic leader behind this landmark programme,
Dr. V. Kurien,8 has pursued this market creation with a lot of ingenuity, with the help of a conducive
policy environment. Thanks to some protection, the Indian farmers have succeeded despite higher
costs than the prevailing prices – also heavily subsidised by the milk producing countries – on the
world market.

If the product really meets the needs of the people - which is proven once they start buying it - one can
achieve a considerable reach-out. The marketing approach is also relatively cost-effective, since the
delivery channel is private and profitable, it is sustainable and does not need direct support.

This study is reviewing 6 projects supported by SDC in Asia and Latin America, where the private
sector is used as delivery channel. All of these 6 projects are very effective for poverty alleviation and
have high performance records; but they have identical problems, mainly low profit in the supply
channel. Each of these projects –except the rope pump, which is a new project – has a reach-out of at
least one million people; one million dollars from donors can generate an output of up to 100 million
dollars per year. In addition, the delivery channel exists further after withdrawal of donor support.

The above table shows – in a condensed form – the key performance indicators: the input in terms of
donor funds, the output in terms of economic performance at the level of the “client” (beneficiary), and
the reach-out, the number of beneficiaries.9 These indicators are described more precisely in annex 1.
Efficiency: very high returns on donor money

We have seen that the ratio between input and output is very good in all the examples. The reason for
this high efficiency is that the donor has only to invest in the creation of a space for the private sector
to operate. The delivery channel is working on its own initiative, once it is profitable.

10


The market creation approach to development uses small and micro-enterprises as a delivery channel.
These are very cost-effective for all “local” tasks in the delivery channel, such as manufacturing,
selling and installing simple goods. As long as the supply channel makes profit – even modest profit –
the activity can go on, after withdrawal of donor’s support as well.
However, this study also shows a common problem in all projects: the supply channels are not very
profitable, with the exception of Forestry in Bangladesh, where the nurseries are a really flourishing
business. Several recommendations on making the supply channel more profitable will be formulated
in chapter 5.2

Effectiveness: Can some products make a difference to the poor?

Useful products for the poor can change their lives. Poor rural women, especially, have not even been
considered to be consumers: whereas, for the work of men a lot of technologies have been introduced,
such as tractors, ox-carts, bicycles, scooters, diesel pumps, women still carry buckets, walk on their
own feet, use sickles and other hand-tools which have a very low productivity. With the introduction
of least-cost drip irrigation in the form of “bucket kits” and “drum kits” in India, women can grow
vegetables worth 3’000 Rupees out of an investment of less than 1’000 Rupees. Nirmala, a woman
from Indore and her neighbour, Sampat Bai, have told me that “the drum kit has changed their lifes!”10

An impact study on the treadle pump in Bangladesh, Nepal and India clearly shows that the owners of
a treadle pump make at least 100 $ net income per year, and 20 % of the farmers make 500-600 $ per
year. This is the difference between being below and above the poverty line.

Of course, poverty is not easy to eradicate: poverty does not only mean a lack of resources, but
dependence, indebtedness, isolation and marginalisation. Even a miracle product cannot just wipe out
these factors. But a good product like a treadle pump, a bucket kit, a latrine, a tree can provide the
physical basis for changing life. There are concrete examples of families who thanks to the use of a
treadle pump, have been able to “pedal out of poverty”, and thus could offer a better education to their
children and experience other forms of social development.

Market creation approach and poverty alleviation

The market creation approach has a specific advantage of being able to reach out to large numbers: the
first five examples reach at least one million people, and some of them have a considerable
“mushrooming” effect. For instance the Village Forestry Program in Bangladesh will become every
year more performing, provided there is no sudden demand saturation for trees occurring.

This growth is only possible if the supply channel is performing and profitable. For this reason, it is
crucial to understand the main characteristics of the market creation approach: the key condition is to
have a market. The early adopters are not the poorest, but the village elites, the rich consumers, the
rural middle-class, etc. The poor aspire to become like them, and the market will only grow if the
“better off” have paved the way for the followers.
The impact study of the treadle pump has confirmed this: the treadle pump has a very significant and
large scale poverty alleviation impact, although the first buyers are not the poor.

Many mistakes have been made by targeting “useful” products too closely to the poor alone: so many
roofing tiles workshops have been supported by NGOs in areas where there are simply not enough
roofs to be built. It may also happen that the products get an attribute of being a “product for the
poor” which is often translated then as a “poor product” that nobody wants to buy, and certainly not
the poor.

11


Sustainability and promotion: Partnerships with the corporate sector and win-win
situations

One problem is difficult to solve: for a development agency or for small enterprises, sustained
promotion is hardly possible. In order to enhance the reach-out and to improve sustainability co-
operation with the corporate sector seems to be an important aspect of the strategy. Such models of co-
operation should be based on synergies and should provide a win-win situation: it should be more cost-
effective to use an existing marketing channel (for instance agro-input dealers or cement distributors)
rather than building up a separate channel. For the corporate sector, such a co-operation should bring a
long-term benefit such as more loyalties from the dealers, a better marketing mix and new clients to
the company.
A corporate sector company can develop new markets: for instance the small and marginal farmers,
self-constructors in the low-cost housing market. On its own, the company would not have naturally
targeted these markets nor would it have had the knowledge – or sometimes the vision – to develop
them. Although, it is amazing to see how many thousand of small shops belong to a supply channel of
large multinational companies, it is not a common practice in commercial marketing to involve small
and micro-enterprises.

Such partnerships are a new field for development co-operation as well as for the corporate sector.
They are not yet proven on a large scale, but it is evident that they are a form of co-operation of the
next millennium. The World Bank is emphasising such public-private partnerships as a new form of
development11. However, for the time being, there are many more frustrations than success stories to
be shared. An endeavour by “Hope International” to mobilise the corporate sector for development co-
operation in India has been rather disappointing: “Most companies were content with donating money,
something that didn’t need too much involvement. Anything that entailed continuous involvement and
responsibility was tedious”.12

Nevertheless, it seems very interesting and promising to involve the corporate sector and to seek new
synergies through their presence on the market:

The first reason is the high existing frustration connected to the “state-driven” delivery approaches and
to the failure to eradicate poverty through the public sector programmes.
The second reason is the growing scarcity of available public funds, and
The third reason is the need for the corporate sector – in its own long-term interest – to contribute
actively to large scale poverty eradication. 13

12

___________________________________________Examples of market creation approaches

Part 2: Analysis of 5 examples

A detailed description of the case studies will be prepared in a separate publication; for this paper, we
concentrate on a summary and the main features of these 5 case studies.

Example Nr. 1: 100 million trees as a social insurance

The VFFP (Village and Farm Forestry Programme) in Bangladesh started in 1986 as an action
research programme of SDC. Its aim was to stimulate tree plantation in Northern Bangladesh. With
growing population pressure, the forest area in Bangladesh was shrunk further, every year (in 1986
less than 10 % of the total area was still forest land) and there is growing pressure on biomass
production for fuel, fodder, fruit and timber. The only space to grow more trees was in the fields and
homesteads of the people.

The project started with NGOs and so-called “core farmers” whose role was to convince their peers
about the usefulness of planting trees around their house and in the rice-field as inter-cropping. At the
beginning they were paid extension workers. The project selected a number of flood-resistant,
nitrogen-fixing and fast growing tree species which would carry high yields and, should not lower rice
yields significantly if their branches were chopped regularly.

The project has become a major success story because:

At the start of the project, in 1986, one could not even expect people to plant trees if saplings were
given “free”. Now, the price of saplings has risen unexpectedly to 5-6 Takas (10 US cents) per sapling,
mainly due to the economic value of the trees. After 7-20 years, the value of a tree is between 20 and
100 $, which results in a net present value of 5-6 $, depending on the tree species.
At the same time, the free market (roadside plantations by government and NGOs) has also created a
very sound demand.
650’000 participating farmers are proud owners of trees as their precious assets; contrary to the initial
perception, they buy trees not mainly for short-term income benefits (like fodder, fuel and fruits) –
although these are important side-benefits – but for a long term investment. People plant trees as an
inflation-free savings scheme, and as a social insurance. In case of an emergency (a sick child or a
house damaged by floods), the tree can be chopped and sold for cash.
In this sense, it is an extremely good investment for a family: they buy 15 saplings per year for $ 1.50
and get a net present value (NPV) of 90 $ per year as a relatively safe deposit (very rarely, trees are
washed away by the floods).
This favourable trend in pricing has turned the nurseries of the “core farmers” from a side activity to a
very profitable business. Since the “core farmers” have been selected among very poor people with an
enterprising spirit, the 2500 nurseries that exist today, have turned into flourishing businesses. They
make an average turnover of 5 $ per day and have sold 105 million trees as of today. Soon, they will
deliver 100 million trees every year.
VFFP is good value for donor money: SDC invests roughly one million dollars per year, but the asset
creation with the participating farmers in terms of NPV is already 60 million $ /year.

Example Nr. 2: pedalling out of poverty with the treadle pump

The treadle pump is a pedal driven irrigation pump, widely used in Bangladesh, Eastern India and
Nepal, which costs 15 to 25 dollars and can irrigate half an acre of land, if the groundwater table is not
lower than 6 metres.

The main features of the treadle pump (TP) today are as follows:

An average TP user makes an additional net income of at least 100 $ per year; this is a conservative
estimate, as a recent impact study14 shows, that 20 % of the farmers make 500-600 $ more income on

13


half an acre of land. The pump is “self-selecting” the target group of the poor: landholdings of up to
half an acre are defined as landless people and those who have a little more are marginal farmers. In
some areas, farmers grow more rice for home consumption, in other areas they grow very profitable
vegetables as a cash crop and for home consumption.
There are over one million of TP users in Bangladesh and the social impact of over 100 million
dollars additional net income per year is certainly a remarkable achievement. But there are ten million
potential users in Eastern India and Nepal, in the so-called “poverty square” which packs 400 m of
Asia’s 900 m poor. It is a huge task for IDE and others to raise the sales from the present impressive
level (80’000/yr in Bangladesh, 50’000/yr in India) to the desired level to fulfil the task. If a further
programme can tap the 10 m TP market, it would pump 1 billion dollar net income per year to the
poor in the poorest pocket of the world.
For this, the supply channel should become more profitable and dynamic. Today, the delivery
channel in Bangladesh consists of 65 manufacturers, 700 dealers, and 5000 installers. They make and
sell the pump with profit, but not to the tune one would like to see. The profit in the supply channel is
especially low for the manufacturer (who has less than 50 US cents profit per pump) but grows at
every step; dealers make 3 $, installers 2 – 6 $ profit: not a bad business, but little compared to what
the farmer gets as return.
In order to strengthen the supply channel, it is to be seen if the product range can be expanded (adding
several pump types, micro-diesel sets, affordable micro-irrigation technologies and also more
knowledge and inputs like better seeds), and if cooperation with existing marketing channels can
create synergies.

The treadle pump provides excellent returns for donor money: with an investment of roughly one
million dollars per year to IDE (the facilitating NGO), over 100 million dollars of returns have been
generated annually by formerly very poor farmers.

Example Nr. 3: 60 kilograms more maize per family with “Postcosecha” silos

The “Postcosecha” silos are made from tin-sheets by “artesanos” and have a storage capacity from 70
kgs to 1350 kgs. The project started already in the 80s in Honduras and is spreading now in Nicaragua,
El Salvador and Guatemala.

The main features of Postcosecha are the following:

Over 170‘000 silos have been distributed so far in Central America, they can store 1,25 million tons of
maize and avoid yearly losses of over 10’000 tons from rats and bugs. This means, each family has 61
kilograms per year more maize to eat.
A silo costs between 12 $ (for 70 kg) and 63 $ (for 1350 kg) and pays itself in 4 years (for 70 kg) or in
3 years (for 1350 kg) if one counts the value of the grain losses (8% per year); however, if one adds
the earnings made from price fluctuations, the payback remains 4 years for the small silo but becomes
only 9 months for the large one.
The silos are manufactured by 620 “artesanos” in small workshops and the average net earning per
workshop is 700 $ per year. This is a nice additional income but not enough for any of the artesanos to
live from silos. The people in charge of the project try now to make the channel more responsible by
involving the artesanos in the promotion; it is intended to create and support “artesano-cooperatives”.
Postcosecha is quite a good investment for donors: One million $ per year of donor money provides
6.2 million $ gains per year to all silo owners.

Example Nr. 4: The network of roofing tiles workshops

Around 15 years ago, a technology called “fibre-reinforced roofing sheets” drew the attention of
appropriate technologists and initially, everybody loved it: it was simple, ecological and loked as
though it was an alternative to asbestos sheets. However, initial failures led to frustrations and SKAT,

14


the “Swiss Centre for Development Cooperation in Technology Management” was mandated by SDC
to study the technology and to set up a network of properly assisted micro-enterprises.
Today, the main features of the “micro-concrete roofing (MCR) tiles” network are the following:

Over 2’000 workshops all over the world produce MCR tiles and sell around 150‘000 average sized
roofs per year for low cost houses and for the mainstream market.
The tiles – as a rule – are priced cheaper than GI sheets but more expensive than thatched roofs: an
MCR roof costs around 4 $ per m2 and is very strong, if properly made.
MCR workshops are – moderately – profitable; if they stand on their own, it may take 2 years to get
the initial investment of 5’000 $ back (for one table, moulds and curing tank). However, if an
experienced entrepreneur produces other products as well (cement blocks) and if he can provide
installed roofs (instead of tiles only), the business may be more profitable.
The technology is now proven and ready for a truly large scale dissemination. This could be done with
a package of technologies for the whole range of materials for cost-effective housing and with targeted
and good promotional activities.
In order to make the business flourish, negotiations with cement companies to integrate the workshops
into their supply channel are under way and this unleashes very significant synergies. To make cost-
effective building materials available through micro-enterprises may be the only answer to the striking
housing deficit of several million houses in the world. Many poor people buy building materials as a
saving scheme and build their houses “brick by brick” over 10 to 20 years.

Example Nr. 5: Making a business out of latrine production

One of the most amazing examples of a socially relevant business is the story of private latrine
producers in Bangladesh. SDC has supported a water and sanitation project in Bangladesh with
UNICEF and DANIDA. Whereas the installation of pumps through the government agency DPHE
(Department of Public Health Engineering) has been quite successful, it was much tougher to convince
people of sanitation and hygiene. A large “social mobilization campaign” for sanitation made latrines
popular and created space for a flourishing private sector.

These are the key features of “sanitation by the private sector”:

Today, around 6‘000 private workshops produce latrines and sell them despite stiff competition from
subsidised government latrines. An average workshop may produce around 200 latrines per year at a
sales price of 10 $. The profit per workshop may be in the order of 200 to 300 $, not much, but still a
welcome additional source of income in rural Bangladesh.
Unfortunately, 900 of the government-owned DPHE sanitation centres still exist and undergo heavy
losses; they undermine the market with subsidised latrines and have nevertheless difficulties to sell
their stuff.
People are willing to pay for latrines, because of prestige, comfort, privacy and also for health reasons.
The health benefits of a latrine which costs 10 $ (for 5 rings and one slab) are in the order of 8$ per
year. However, the health impact of latrines is visible only if most families of a local community adopt
better hygiene practices.
Bangladesh has reached a sanitation-coverage of 40 %, and altogether, the 900 DPHE, the 500 NGO
and the 6000 private latrine producers sell around 1.2 million latrines per year. At this rate, it may take
another 12 years to reach full coverage. This is a very good record in South Asia.
Neither SDC nor any other donor have considered the private latrine producers as a target for BDS
(Business development services); the only input from donors was the creation of a massive demand
through the social mobilisation campaign. But this example shows that a private sector can emerge to
deliver goods (such as latrines) which were previously not even used when given free of cost.

15

__________________________________________________Open questions and discussion

Open questions and discussion

How to fund market creation projects? Methodological issues for donors

The main roles or “rules of the game” in creating markets

The roles of the involved institutions should be differentiated and the “rules of the game” should
clearly be the following:

• The donors and implementing organisations are facilitators only and must full-heartedly
support private enterprises; donors and implementers must understand the needs of the private
sector, especially the fact that they need to make profit! As facilitators, they must support
marketing efforts through policy dialogue, conducive environments, R&D and promotion;
• The „doers“ are private enterprises! They should take their responsibility and act as efficient
and effective suppliers of the products and services and they should make profit.
• There may be a lot of other actors such as BDS providers (training, delivery of raw materials
and intermediate goods) and government agencies (for regulation, standards, etc.); they should
also primarily be facilitators.
• For good and sustainable promotion, business associations can be created, if the supply
channel is profitable enough; another way is to seek a co-operation with larger companies
which have a direct or indirect interest in promoting specific products and are willing to
integrate enterprises into their supply channel.

So far, so good. However, this is so in theory, and the practice may slightly deviate from these
principles. Creating a market means to field as many products into the market until there is a critical
mass. Who fields the first products, before any supply channel is in operation? Obviouosly, the
facilitating organisations needs to become a “doer”, initially. This is also not a problem, since there is
nothing to be “distorted”, if the supply channel does not exist. However, it requires a lot of wisdom
and discipline to withdraw in the right moment and to become a facilitator, once the channel starts to
develop.

We must recognise that it may be psychologically difficult to limit oneself to the role of facilitator,
and that there is a real dilemma between the role of facilitator and that of being a „doer“. It is quite
understandable that young and motivated MBA graduates from IDE do not only want to promote the
sales of others. It is hard to be in the field and work for the benefit of the dealers; especially since
these dealers are not always the incarnation of sympathy.

It was a painful process for IDE and SDC when one group of IDE in Bangladesh split away and
created its own “Krishok Bandhu” company. The staff was very motivated to make out of treadle
pump dissemination a business of its own. On the one hand, this is a sad development, because the
impact on creating supply capacity is higher as a facilitator than as a BDS provider. On the other hand,
one has also to admire that “Krishok Bandhu” has survived as a private company until today, despite
the low margins with the treadle pump.

Another painful aspect has to do with profits. A crucial dimension of a market creation approach is to
accept profit as the driving force to create “vibrant” markets. The Village forestry programme in
Bangladesh is an illustration of this: forestry is such a dynamic market because it is a really flourishing
business for both the nurseries as well as the customers of tree saplings.

At the other end of the spectrum is the DPHE (Department of Health and Public Engineering) in
Bangladesh which is still delivering latrines with a subsidy and thus underminines the private sector.
But even here remains the question if a market for latrines could have emerged without DPHE fielding
many thousands of latrines and creating a “critical mass” of examples.

16


Do’s and Don’ts for donors and facilitators

To create a market is demanding and requires patience, persistence and understanding:

• Patience: the market creation approach cannot bring fast results, a market must grow and the
“doers”, the private sector, need to be motivated to play the major role. A supply channel can
emerge only slowly (see the chapter about “scouts” and “troops”) and the channel can only become
profitable once there is a critical mass. Any hasted action – such as giving away the goods for free or
subsidizing them – may be counterproductive;
• Persistence: donors need to facilitate the creation of a conducive environment and may need to
invest significant amounts of time in a policy dialogue with all the involved partners. Barriers may
consist of missing legal provisions (ownership of trees, building standards, etc.), of over-regulation
or of a distorting subsidy culture;
• Understanding: donors should understand thoroughly the logics and the economics of their
partners, especially the need of small enterprises to make profit. This is not always obvious, as
many development workers may be motivated to promote products rather than the supply channel. In
some parts of the world, there are still prevailing biases against “profit” and “middlemen”, especially
among development workers and NGOs.

Facilitation means to create a space for others and refrain from sitting in the driver’s seat. This is very
difficult and demanding. Whoever has learnt driving a car appreciates the difficult role of a driving
instructor: sitting next to the learner, giving him the steering wheel and encouraging him to drive,
equipped only with clutch and brakes for emergencies. Such driving lessons are not free of conflicts,
specially if the driving instructor is the husband or the father.

Do donors create artificial or sustainable markets?

Donors can have a lot of impact in creating markets, but they can also prevent markets from emerging:
there are many examples where interventions of donors, governments or NGOs have been counter-
productive. The fact that there is a market for solar water heaters in Nepal but not really in India has
more to do with the subsidy policy of the government and some donors than with anything else.
Donors have therefore quite a delicate role: they should support and facilitate real market trends and
not create artificial conditions for products which are not sustainable in the long run.

It must be stated very clearly that, out of the 6 examples only the roofing tiles network has been
designed as a “business promotion” programme. The projects have followed the guidelines for BDS
(Business development services)15 even less. All projects started long before the guidelines were
developed, and their objectives were slightly different. The BDS guidelines basically advocate for
support interventions which are in line with the market forces and which do not distort the market. The
emphasis is on services which are really useful for small enterprises, for which they are willing to pay
and for which no subsidies are required in the long run.

The market creation approach to development goes beyond the BDS approach: it develops
technologies and products, opens up the market for them and creates at the same time good
opportunities for micro-enterprises. There are more risks involved in this approach, and to judge
whether one is on the right track or not is more difficult.

The objectives of the 6 projects are the following – compared to those of BDS::

1. VFFP: to green the landscape with trees on farmers’ land – and not to make a business out of
nurseries;
2. Treadle pump: to provide access to equitable irrigation to marginal farmers – and not to create
a profitable supply channel;
3. Postcosecha: to provide storage capacity and liberate farmers from the monetary losses due to
rodents and price fluctuations – and not to make the “artesanos” viable;

17


4. MCR: to set up at least 1’000 MCR micro-enterprises within 10 years; – this example is the
closest one to a small business promotion programme;
5. Sanitation: to stimulate the demand for latrines for the private sector – but not to create a
profitable supply channel.
6. Rope pump: to achieve a breakthrough for the rope pump – but only one supplier, “Bombas de
Mecate”, has really started a small industry.

What should the donors fund?

Donors can distort the market if they are not careful and not focused in their interventions. As
facilitators, they should only finance „common goods“ which serve many enterprises and not
subsidise individual companies. Such non-distorting interventions are in the following areas:

• R&D and product development;
• Test marketing and product adaptation;
• Promotion and market development;
• Training at all levels (subsidised but against fees);
• Policy dialogue, advocacy and creating public awareness.

As the graph on “market creation” shows, there are long periods of losses which even a corporate
sector company would have to bear during product development and the introduction phase. For the
products we are looking at, these costs may not be recovered easily, unless the promoter produces the
products in exclusivity. This, however, would eliminate the possibility of creating a supply channel
through micro-enterprises Therefore, R&D costs, market creation and promotion must as a rule be
funded by donor contributions.

However, future market creation approaches may also consider ways and means to recover more of the
market creation costs by introducing branding, patenting and quality control mechanisms, etc. This
recovery can happen through franchising fees, but more easily by providing some technical inputs
which are part of the end-product.

To collect fees for services is the main guiding principle of the BDS approach, but it may not always
be easy. It is for this reason that the service provider is ideally a private company: People are used to
pay fees to a private business, but they would not pay a donor.

Whenever possible, services should be offered against a fee, customer friendly and suited to the needs.
This requires to involve as far as possible private sector intermediaries: an agro-input distributor of
Novartis in India runs an extension service for farmers and farmers pay the fee without questioning it.
Of course, they know what they get and that it is worth their money. A recently set-up private training
centre for cost-effective building materials in India plans to collect fees for the training of
entrepreneurs; since the training centre belongs to a private manufacturer of block-making machines,
nobody expects free services from him.

We should also not forget that in practice we may well operate in a heavily subsidised environment. In
India, for instance, there are subsidies for energy, for pumps and for a million of other things. As a
result of this and of the bias towards large scale farming, technologies for small farmers are often
absent: although three quarters of the farmers in developing countries have less than 5 acres of land,
there is no conventional irrigation technology available with less than 5 horse-powers. These
inappropriate technologies have been pushed into the market with very high subsidies: in India, one
can get a diesel pump for less than 10 % of the cost and the price of diesel was about half the world
market price until very recently. These facts should also be taken into consideration when we talk
about distortion, and it would be highly unfair to state that small irrigation technologies like the treadle
pump and low cost drip irrigation should come into place simply by the market forces. There is no
harm if a donor develops technologies for poor people and does promotion of small scale irrigation
technologies within such an environment of “mainstream distortion”.

18


Time frame for support: 10 years and more

It should be recognised that the time frame for all these projects is at least 10 years. They start with
action research and undergo lots of changes in the approach and strategy. None of the projects
achieved significant numbers very fast. It is even a characteristic of the market creation approach that
it requires a lot of time to set up a private delivery channel. As this private sector responds to signals
from the demand side of the market, it necessarily takes time till one reaches a critical mass. It is a
typical hen and egg problem: if there is no demand, there is no supply, and both need to grow slowly
and steadily together.

Keeping this long incubation period of 10 years and more in mind, we should recognise that, if
successful, the projects merit a scaling-up, and this requires a different approach than in the gestation
period. It would be a big mistake to step out just when the (exponential) growth curve turns into a
steep upwards direction.

Understandably, one may be „tired“ after 10 years, but there is a real chance to make a large impact
once one has reached such a critical mass. However, we should not do „just more of the same“, but
work out specific dissemination strategies which can reach large numbers. This is definitively a
different approach than bringing an action research programme into motion.

Marketing has to deal with product cycles and one of the strategic models to explain this cycle is the
“AIDA model”:

A wareness: it takes time to create awareness (early adopters first come forward)

I nformation: it takes more time till a user has all the information he/she needs

D ecision: only then, will people take a decision (for instance to buy a pump)

A ction: it may take even more time till people (especially the poor)
take action (they may for example have no money)

The consequences of this AIDA pattern is that project cycles will be very long-term, even for scaling
them up. The AIDA model shows for instance that there is no use to do further promotion in a village
where the early adopters have just purchased a pump. For the next one or two years, the late follower
group will observe and they will not buy before they have seen the early adopters succeed. Patience is
a good companion for a market creation approach. As we have seen in chapter 1.3, the results of a
market creation approach come into the open very slowly and very late, but they are even more
sustainable and pertaining. The rewards of market creation approaches are only visible after 10 or 20
years of nurturing.
The disliking of marketing in development: why are donors not jumping in?

There seems to be surprisingly little attraction for donors to promote “market creation approaches”.
IDE has – despite its phenomenal track record in terms of impact – not managed to get many donors
on board. Everybody seems to be interested in the product and IDE should install drip irrigation in all
parts of India, in the rest of the world, but very few donors would support the effort of creating a
market. It would probably be much easier to get 10 million dollars to give one million bucket kits
away to poor families then investing one million in a delivery channel which may supply ten million
bucket kits over time.

19


Why is this so? I have no answer myself. Maybe it has to do with the fact that so little is known about
the approach, about its intricacies and especially its long-term effects. Maybe, most of the donor
money is either tied up for government programmes or geared up for more short-term results; it is a
fact that much more money is available for disaster aid than for extremely long-term indirect
programmes, where it is also difficult to get the final credit ascribed to one single organization.

How to improve marketing strategies? Issues for project implementers

Key problem Nr. 1: How to make the supply channel more profitable?

The Village Forestry Programme in Bangladesh (VFFP) is the only project with really financially
flourishing micro-enterprises – the nurseries. All the other projects suffer from relatively poor profit in
the supply channel. The micro-enterprises delivering the goods survive, but they do not really flourish,
and they expand very slowly. This is an issue to be addressed, because better profits would improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of the supply channel and also increase the outreach and sustainability.

How can the supply channel increase profit? Basically through two methods, higher sales volumes or
higher prices. For increased volumes, it is crucial to improve the promotion, for higher prices, the
answer may consist of creating a „product with a plus“, a product with a higher value added.

• In the VFFP, people are already now willing to pay 100 Takas for a grafted high-yielding
quality tree sapling, compared to 5 or 6 Takas for an ordinary sapling. Quality saplings will
increase the profit of the nurseries and tree growers significantly: there is a very high potential
for quality improvement.
• Around 20 % of treadle pump owners do not only earn 100 $ extra income but 500-600 $
from half an acre land: these are farmers who do not just plant rice but grow high value
vegetables. To unleash this big potential, it may be useful to add good inputs such as quality
seeds, know-how and good practices; this may increase the yields manifold. It may be a good
chance to add value to the delivery channel by selling treadle pumps with good seeds, fertiliser
and know-how. This constellation is naturally a good illustration for agro-input companies,
showing them why it is a good investment to promote the treadle pump. IDE has been
influenced in the design of their marketing channel in Bangladesh by the Ciba Geigy agro-
input company there; now, it would be interesting to link up again for the promotion of the
pump.

• For Postcosecha silos, one could also look at the agro-input companies as potential dealers and
promoters, since the farmers buy quite a few agro-inputs. This may not be realistic in Central
America for lack of good marketing practices in the agro-input business, but one fertiliser
company in India has expressed interest in promoting technologies to avoid post-harvest
losses. A good strategy to raise profit for the “artesanos” can consist of product
diversification and of the supply of a “product plus”. Already now, some “artesanos” make a
range of other products as well; the “rope pump” could be an excellent product companion.

• For MCR tiles, a broader product range (colour tiles) is a “must”, but the inclusion of other
cost-effective building materials (for floors, walls, doors and windows) and the links to the
supply channel of cement companies can effectively make their business more profitable.

• For latrines, the manufacturing of other cement products, such as MCR tiles, floors, walls,
doors and windows could be a way to improve the returns of the workshops. Moreover,
linking up workshops to the marketing network of cement companies could creat win-win
situations for all partners: the latrine producers in Bangladesh consume 35’000 tons of cement
per year, an attractive market for a cement company.

20


In other words, R&D and continous product development are essential elements of a market
creation approach and just as promotion needs to be a continuous process, it is never good enough to
think that a product is complete in itself. In this sense, we need to learn a lot more from commercial
marketing.

Product ranges and mixes: hardware or software?

Most products in the above examples are typical hardware products (pumps, silos, tiles). For such
products, the profit margins are low: in most of the cases, the price cannot be more than production
cost plus 10 %, and even then, there is fierce competition.

To improve the profitability of the workshops, it is necessary to look at ways to diversify the supply of
these products and to introduce more elements of “software”, by including non-tangible values like
services, provision of know-how, etc. This is very much related to the “product plus” concept.

Examples for such developments can be as follows:

• “grafted trees” and know-how about growing of fruit trees;
• micro-irrigation kits with a package of seeds, fertiliser and know-how;
• supply of services to construct roofs and houses, rather than manufacturing only tiles.

Financing: linking up with financial institutions

An important link which cannot be dealt with in this study in detail is the link to financial institutions.
For most products mentioned, the initial investment is high, although affordability is in the center of
attention. In the case of the treadle pump, links with the “Grameen Bank” and with other micro-credit
programmes have been tried successfully. Such links could and should be much more intensified.
Wherever access to credit has been available, the creation of a market has been faster. The initial
promotion of the treadle pump through the Bangladesh Tobacco Company was critical. For silos,
latrines, roofs, pumps and low-cost drip irrigation, the availability of credit will speed up the sales
considerably and also extend the reach to poorer customers. Already today, a considerable percentage
of Postcosecha silos are purchased with micro-credit. A most promising avenue would also be to
develop micro-credit for the self-constructor for low-cost housing.

What kind of institutions are needed? Institutional issues
Who can be a good facilitator?

The market creation approach needs a specific type of institution. Although IDE (International
Development Enterprises), a Denver-based international NGO, has been working with the market
creation approach for over 15 years, its approach has not been adopted by one single other NGO on a
large scale. Why is this so?

Typical NGOs would have problems with the narrow focus of the market creation approach and
with the promotion of only one product. Even within IDE, there is a constant questioning of the staff
whether they should focus on a few products or cater for the entire needs of a farming community. It is
understandably a constant challenge to talk to farmers who are asking for all kinds of other things and
not only for a pump. In addition, many NGOs have ideological problems with the concept of profit
margins. As one consultant brought it to the point: many or rather most NGOs are “too broad-minded
and not greedy enough” to do proper marketing.

In the future, large-scale dissemination projects will need NGO inputs in the sense of BDS facilitators,
but maybe not in the way, IDE is working at present. I am of the opinion that without involving the
commercial private sector and especially without using the marketing channels of the corporate sector,
we shall not be able to reach the numbers that are needed. Institutionally, this would require an NGO

21


(or consultancy organisation) that would be even less of a “doer” than IDE is at present. The primary
role of such an NGO would be to facilitate the creation of other BDS facilitators and providers. There
is a need for a lot of coordinating, lobbying and training facility activities.

This capacity can be built up and there is no reason why the six examples cannot be replicated on a
very large scale. But, for this, it is important to involve other actors such as governments and the
private sector, especially some large, open-minded corporate sector companies. It would be too costly
to set up separate marketing channels for all the products, the poor deserve to get access to, and it
would also take too long.

Partnership with the corporate sector

Neither an NGO nor a donor can sustain promotional efforts over a long period: to spread out a
message continuously is very costly and it is not possible to charge any of the products with a good
margin to pay for this. Coca-Cola can do so much promotion because nobody notices that, for every
bottle, one pays a fraction of a cent for promotion.

Producers’ associations or cooperatives as „driving force“ for the promotion and expansion of these
products may be far too weak, dispersed and not profitable enough to be a strong and dynamic
promoter. Moreover, it is difficult to organise small and micro-entrepreneurs in an association, where
they should contribute for actions which also serve their competitors. Associations are very slow
instruments and they need many years of confidence-building till they become strong enough.

More promising – and maybe also very challenging and tricky – are efforts to link the supply channel
with the corporate sector or other mainstream institutions. This is a new avenue which is not yet
explored but seems very promising. Many open-minded companies do want to make a contribution to
society as “corporate citizens”. Sometimes, they do quite a lot, but they are not always very effective:
why should a large company set up a hospital or behave like an NGO when they have excellent
marketing skills which they could share and bring into large-scale dissemination?

Synthesis and conclusions

To sum up: the market creation approach to development is very promising and powerful, it has a
large impact, is relatively cheap but very sustainable. There is a real potential to significantly scale up
some of the projects in cooperation with several partners:

• donors to initiate replicable models, to undertake a policy dialogue about them and to create
the capacity of BDS facilitation;
• NGOs as facilitators and coordinators, to set up BDS providers and promote advocacy for the
approach and the products;
• a private supply channel which will manufacture, sell and install the products profitably and
on a large scale;
• and selected companies from the corporate sector support promotion and to facilitate the
association and integration of micro-enterprises into their supply channels.

Each partner has a role to play, and nobody can do the job in “splendid isolation”. It seems like a
dream, but the examples show that the market creation approach can contribute effectively, efficiently
and sustainably to poverty alleviation. It is quite understandable that sceptical readers doubt about the
possibility to make a business out of poverty alleviation. But if it is possible to sell latrines, trees and
pumps, and create jobs for the poor, then let us be surprised and try to work hard to reach out to many
million more people. The six examples are sound enough to make us believe that such a dream can
come true.

22


Annex: Supply channel graphs

1


Marketing Channel for tree saplings 650’00 farmers have planted
(VFFP, Village and Farm Forestry 31 mio seedlings in 2 years
Program, Bangladesh)
NPV (net present value) /tree is
approx. 300 Taka (6 $) /tree
(47 seedlings / family)
2500 Core Farmers =~250 $ assets /family
produced / sold 105 million seedlings (3
years) Total NPV of all seedlings / year
35 mio seedlings/yr 90’000’000 US $ /yr
(will grow to 100 mio by 2001)
Price/seedling Tk 5 – 6
(11 US cents)
Turnover of all nurseries
Tk 18 crore 74 million seedlings
(3,6 mio US $)
have been sold to
Turnover per nursery:
SDC Dhaka: NGOs and
TK 77’000 (1540 $) / yr contractors for road
donor input
1985-2000 side plantation
7 mio US $

CFs, (nurseries)
Core Farmers
PFs,
RSCs NGOs used to be extension Participating Free Market
VFFP 4 Regional
agents (to convince their Farmers NGOs and
neighbours to plant trees;
Project office Service 34 NGOs with Contractors buy
Today, they are dynamic plant trees in their
(used to be Centres financial support saplings for road
entrepreneurs selling to homestead and in
part of SDC in Jessore, from SDC; side tree plantations;
local markets; their rice fields or in
Dhaka), Rajshahi, New: organized in Core Farmers from other
80 NGOs without woodlots villages buy also.
Roles: Bogra and Farmer’s Associations
financial support
Funds Dinajpur from SDC
Advice
TA
Monitoring

1


Marketing Channel for Treadle Pumps in Bangladesh
Net income from pump
(average):
avg. mistry installs:
115 –130 $ /year
16 pumps /y
avg. sales per dealer: Net income all farmers:
116 pumps /y Installation fee per
production/worksh: pump: 130’000’000 $ / year
SDC, Profit per pump: 3.00 $ 2.00 – 6.00 $
donors 1262 pumps /y
Profit/dealer: 335 $ Income/mistry: additional agricultural
66 $ / year GDP
Profit per pump: 0.50 $ Income all
Turnover of all dealers.: 200-400 mio $ / year
Profit/workshop: 681 $ 1’968’000 $ mistries/year:
Turnover of all manuf.: Profit all dealers: 328’000 $
Donor input in 492’000 $ 236’160 $
Bangladesh Profit all
~ 1 Mio $ / year; manufacturers:
~ 6 Mio $ over 44’280 $
the last 12 years Farmers (1/2 acre)
Out of 1.3 million pumps
Mistries sold, one estimates that
Dealers
Manufacturers Out of 6' / 4'
000 000 650' farmers still use
000
Out of 850 / 560 actively linked to IDE TPs and 350' have
000
Out of 80 / 50 actively actively linked to IDE
IDE linked to IDE approx number of graduated to diesel pumps:
Bangladesh approx. number of mistries: 5’000 genuine users: 1 million
approx nr. of manuf.: dealers: 705
65
IDE’s role: Mistries install the pump A half acre farmer can
Dealers sell pump and and sink the tubewell; make a net profit of US $
Produce different pipe for Taka 1200
Channel models from Takas 250 115 from a pump; this is
support (24.00 $); Installation fee the average figure;
– 350 ( 5 – 7 $)
Training (~=income) per pump
Demos avg. profit per pump Taka 100 – 300 (2 – 6 $) The additional agricultural
average profit per Taka 144 (3.00 $)
Media pump: 25 Taka or 50 GDP (gross income) may
Promotion US cents be twice or thrice as much

1

1
Jim Tamburn: “Business development services – how sustainable can they be?” ILO, Geneva, 1998
2
See Thomas Fischer, Viajy Mahajan: “The forgotten sector – Non-Farm Employment and Enterprises in Rural
India”, Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, 1997, page 72 ff
3
Many books have been written on the 4 Ps and it seems that there are many other Ps added (for instance
“People”); we refer here to the main 4 Ps and follow the “guru” of marketing, Philip Kotler. See Philip Kotler,
Gary Armstrong: “Principles of Marketing”, Prentice Hall, New Delhi, 1999 and many other books of the same
author.
4
For a World Bank/SDC project on market development for solar photovoltaic products a market study was
commissioned which focussed entirely on urban markets, because the market research agency was not capable to
send their staff to rural areas.
5
see Thomas J. Stanley: “Marketing to the Affluent”, New York 1988; Thomas J. Stanley: “Selling to the
Affluent”, New York 1991. Stanley is author of the bestseller: “The millionaire next door”.
6
This graph is based on the chapter “product cycle strategies” in Philip Kotler, Gary Armstrong: “Principles of
Marketing”, Prentice Hall, New York, New Delhi, 1999, page 288 ff.
7
Barry Berman: “Marketing Channels”, John Wiley, New York, 1996, page 342
8
See M. V. Kamath: “Milkman from Anand – the story of Verghese Kurien”, New Delhi 1996
9
It is very difficult to define comparable figures for “output” and for “reach-out”. The figures are only estimates
which give an order of magnitude. Here are some explanations:
Output VFFP: 90 m $ is the annual net present value created by the trees which are purchased by the
participating farmers; the treadle pump output is the 100 $ net income by a million farmers; the output of the
silos is the total savings in grain losses and price gains; the output of MCR is the profit of the suppliers in the
channel and for latrines it is the estimated health cost saving by a latrine of 8 $ / family.
Reach-out: in case of VFFP there are 650’000 participating farmers (families), in the case of treadle pump over 1
million farmers (families), in case of the silos, there are about 150’000 families which have a silo; in the case of
MCR, there are over 150’000 new roofs made available (cumulative roofs more than a million); and in the case
of latrines, there are over a million latrines per year added.
10
See Urs Heierli: Report on a visit to Indore and Maikaal Bio Re Ltd. (Bio cotton) for Micro-Irrigation;
unpublished report by SDC, New Delhi, October 1998,
11
The World Bank and other agencies have set-up a “Partnership for Poverty Reduction” program and created a
databank of case studies (best practices) on partnerships between the public and private sector (see
http//www1.worldbank.org/ppr/).
12
See “Profit and Philantrhropy”, BusinessWorld, New Delhi, 22 February 1998
13
See: Ariel Fiszbein, Pamela Lowden: Working together for a Change”, the EDI (Economic Development
Institute) Learning Series, The Worldbank, Washington 1999
14
See Tushaar Shah et al: “Pedal Pump and the Poor – Social Impact of a manual irrigation technology in South
Asia”, not yet published, 1999
15
See Committee of Donor Agencies for Small Enterprise Development: “Business Development Services for
SMEs: Preliminary Guidelines for Donor-Funded Interventions, Washington, January 1998

S A D C Study

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to S A D C Study (20)

More from 00shelly (9)

S A D C Study