LIGHTING DEVICES TEST RESULTS

LIGHTING DEVICES TEST RESULTSTanzania Results

June 2009

© 2008 International Finance Corporation – The World Bank All Rights Reserved TANZANIA

Report Overview

1 Lighting Africa Overview / Market Intelligence Program

2 Market Research Approach

3 Lighting Devices Testing: Setting the Scene

4 Lighting Devices Tested

5 How Do We Assess Potential?

6 Brief Country Overview

7 Main Product Findings By Country

8 Recommendations By Country

9 Executive Summary

LIGHTING AFRICA OVERVIEW /MARKET INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM


What is Lighting Africa?

Lighting Africa is a World Bank – IFC initiative aimed at supporting the global lighting industry to catalyze a robust market for off-grid lighting products tailored to the needs of African consumers.

The Program’s mission is to make affordable, environmentally sustainable, durable, and safe lighting available to the masses, who currently depend on kerosene lanterns and candles to satisfy their lighting needs.


How does Lighting Africa support the development the lighting market?

The Lighting Africa program is a market-based approach, grounded in the recognition that:

There is a considerable commercial market opportunity and willingness to pay for off-grid lighting, substantiated by annual expenditures on kerosene amounting to $38 billion and $17 billion, globally and in Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively

Recent technological advancements in lighting, particularly in the area of Light-Emitting Diodes (LED), demonstrate increased promise to deliver affordable technological solutions tailored to the African marketplace and beyond

The most expedient and sustainable way to bring affordable, reliable lighting to Africa is by supporting the industry to design and deliver an array of products tailored to the needs of African consumers


How do we ensure Lighting Africa program activities respond to industry need?

All Lighting Africa program activities are designed with and for theindustry and other stakeholders

Through ongoing consultation with a wide array of stakeholders(including private companies, NGOs, financiers, governments and otherkey players along the supply chain) opportunities are identified whereLighting Africa can play an appropriate role in accelerating the off-gridlighting market in Africa


Lighting Africa: Program Areas

Policy: Addressing policy and regulatory barriers Financing: Improving access to finance along the distribution chain; for

example through partnership with financial institutions Product Quality Assurance: Addressing issues of quality with lighting

products to help consumers make informed purchase decisions and prevent market spoilage

Business-to-Business Linkages: Creating opportunities for different players along international supply chain to meet, exchange information and create business partnerships

Market Intelligence: Collecting & disseminating key market information to support successful market penetration

Business Environment: Facilitating market entry through the provision of relevant information, such as country-specific policy and regulatory information


What has the market research provided?

Key market information on consumer needs, preferences and finances.

The information has: Put in the picture the desired functionality and design attributes of different

types of lighting products within product classes (Torch, Floodlight, Task Light, Lantern, Spot Light)

Enabled the industry to overcome potential challenges that are likely to accompany market entry in the African off-grid lighting market

Created a baseline to quantify the size of potential market segments in volume and value terms


Lighting Africa: Why Market Research?

While anecdotal evidence shows a substantial opportunity in the off-grid lighting market in Africa, much of the industry lacks the information needed to develop and market products appropriate to meet the needs of African consumers

This is the result of a premature and undeveloped market, but one with demonstrable potential – the fuel-based lighting market in Africa is currently worth more than $17 billion per year – yet is still largely undefined, untapped, and unrealized

In response to the industry’s call to provide greater comprehension to the scope of this emergent market opportunity, Lighting Africa developed a Market Research program

MARKET RESEARCH APPROACH


Research International: Background and Related Experience

The research was conducted by Research International East Africa, a subsidiary of the global market research firm: Research International is one of the world's largest custom market research agencies, with offices in 50 countries worldwide and over 30 years of expertise.


Research Methodology

Currently, the Lighting Africa market research program covers 5 countries: Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, Ethiopia and Tanzania

Two key market segments: households & micro-businesses in rural and urban areas

The market study involves studies of the market in Africa to provide insights that form the basis for innovative product ideas; and is comprised of three research methods:

1. An exploratory phase involving a qualitative product testing element2. A quantitative Habits and Attitudes survey of the population3. Quantitative Lighting Devices Testing, using the proprietary eValuateTM methodology, to quantify the acceptance and likely uptake of existing, new and revised product ideas for the market in Africa

LIGHTING DEVICES TESTING: SETTING THE SCENE


Lighting Devices Testing Context

The purpose of the lighting devices research is to:

– Assess consumer acceptance and potential for each of the lighting devices tested within the context of norms

– Prioritise and provide guidance as to which products to take forward to the next stage of development

HOW DO WE ASSESS POTENTIAL?


Sample structure

Twenty interviews were conducted per country Main purchasing decision makers were interviewed both prior to use and after recall.

respondents also filled out a questionnaire during usage of the test lights. Interviews were conducted in peoples’ homes to ensure that observations were made

about the space lit and the kind of lighting used

LOCATION LSM NO.OF INTERVIEWS

Urban 1-4 1-5

Urban 5-10 6-10

Rural 1-4 11-15

Rural 5-10 16-20

Tanzania


Is the idea genuinely new and unique?

Is it relevant to you?Is the idea clear to you? Do you find it exciting?

How often would you buy it?

Do you believe it?Do you think it would offer

value for money?Do you actually like the

idea?

Key Questions Asked To Qualitatively Evaluate Lighting Devices

Would you buy it?

Supported by spontaneous likes and dislikes


Key qualitative questions

Interviews focused on answering these questions:

Who is the consumer? Consumer demographics and characteristics of householdsHow does the consumer use light? Current lighting habits, attitudes, preferences and needs How do consumers perceive the products? Assessment of the new products versus product characteristics,

features, learning and marketing approach What does the consumer want? Assessment of needs for current lighting in and around the homeWhich products do consumers prefer? Product preferences (performance and design features) and

developing a quality standard for lighting How much is the consumer willing to pay? Consumer economics (intent and capacity to pay for lighting)


Predicting the likelihood of successful product launch

What we know about successful product launches is that there is a lot more at stake than merely identifying which products should be launched versus which shouldn’t. In predicting the likelihood of a successful product launch we must also identify key drivers that will ensure long term success

Within developing markets, measures of new product success are slightly different from other parts of the world. In developing markets, consumers have little disposable income which means their behaviour with regards to new purchases will be quite conservative – they will not take chances buying into new products if they are not sure whether the product will work for them or not

In order to predict the likelihood of successful product launch, it is important to understand 3 critical measures: the “WHAT?”, the “WHY?” and the “WOW?”. These will be discussed in further detail in the next slides

Additional to these three measures, it must be kept in mind that the cost of the new product, in this case the lighting device, will undoubtedly remain a main driver in creating purchase intent amongst consumers with low levels of disposable income


The WHAT? Test

The WHAT test involves a check of the consumers’ understanding of the various lighting devices under consideration

For the lighting devices to be successful in the market, consumers need to be sure that the lighting devices:

Have a recognisable point of difference, i.e. that it is better than what they are using currently or that it could impact and improve their life in a significant manner

Are understood – it has to be clear how the devices will work

The product must have a recognisable point of difference


The WHY? Test

The WHY test involves a check of the consumers’ need for the various lighting devices under consideration

For the lighting devices to be successful in the market, consumers need to be convinced that they will be relevant to their lifestyle

If the lighting device is perceived to be technologically ‘too advanced’ or too difficult to operate, consumers will feel alienated– it will be perceived as a device for ‘them’- i.e. those people who have more money, and not for ‘me’

This point of difference has to be perceived as a benefit


The WOW? Test

The WOW test involves a check of the consumers’ excitement for the various lighting devices under consideration

For the lighting devices to be successful in the market, consumers need to be convinced that the devices will be innovative and creative

If the devices do not stand out from what is in the market currently, they won’t generate sufficient interest from consumers to encourage purchase and substitution away from other product types

This benefit must be exciting enough to overcome barriers to trial and usage


Traffic light rating system

A traffic light system has been used to report the overall rating provided by the respondents for the features and characteristics of each of the lighting devices:

Overall, the respondents were positive about the specific feature/characteristic+

+/-Overall, the respondents were positive about the specific feature/characteristic, however some respondents had remarks that require attention

- Overall, the respondents were negative about the specific feature/characteristic

BRIEF COUNTRY OVERVIEW

Tanzania

© 2008 International Finance Corporation – The World Bank All Rights Reserved TANZANIA 25

Brief Country Overview: Tanzania

Tanzania

Interesting Facts:

Tanzania lies in the bottom 10% of the world’s economies in terms of per capita income.

Forty percent of Tanzania’s GDP is dependent on agriculture, with 8 out of 10 Tanzanians being employed in the agricultural sector.

The distribution of wealth amongst families in Tanzania is 34.6% (Gini coefficient), which isn’t surprising given the country’s socialist past.

ELECTRICITY


Suggestions for improvement-living standards

Community based suggestions:- Construction of proper infrastructure

and basic amenities

I would like to have a good drainage system, good infrastructure e.g. streets, good hospitals and good schools in our surroundings to prevent our children from walking long distances Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Material (ensuring parity amongst themselves and their neighbours) and information based needs:

– Get connected to the electricity grid– Get connected to clean water– Start business once they are able to

operate a fridge– Renovate the house– Buy radio and / or television

I wish to renovate my house so that it can become modern by nice paintings, good and durable doors and windows, with electricity installed Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Electricity connection is desired not only for personal gain but also as a possible vehicle to earning some income through businesses such as selling cold water, selling ice-cream or metal works. It is also desired because it would facilitate access to information through watching of news on TV.

Surrounding In-home


Likes and dislikes of not having electricity

Alternative lighting

sources

Likes of not having

electricity

Dislikes of not having electricity

• Rechargeable light

• Kerosene lamp

• Tin lamp

• Candles

• Torches

No power blackouts or

power rationing

Lack of entertainment

Lack of awareness on current

happenings from the news on radio and

television

Cannot preserve food using a refrigerator

Electricity makes life easier like ironing, cooking and doing homework for the children Female, Lower LSM, Urban

Not listening to news on radio and watching television, makes us not up-to-date like everyone else Male, Higher LSM, Urban


Electricity connection- usage & attitudes

Connection Likelihood Determinants of

connection

Perceived benefits of connection Barriers to

connection

0-3 months Costs / charges

of installation

Better lighting

Cooking is made easier

Being up-to-date by watching news

More entertainment

Children will be able to read at night

Easier phone charging

More business opportunities

Cost of connection

3-6 months

6-12 months

12 months plus

Not likely

Electricity is perceived as important and is on all the respondents’ wish-list. Unfortunately, due to limited purchasing power / disposable income, the likelihood of connection is perceived to be between 6 and 12 months time.

Ranging from = few respondents to = many respondents

LIGHTING


Current lighting situation

Current lighting situation has room for improvement since respondents are not happy about it. Many feel that they have no choice but to be in their current situation because they have no electricity

Lighting situation is depressing and problematic because I use a kerosene lamp which emits a lot of smoke and as a result we always cough Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Lighting by tin lamp is not good because it hurts our eyes and chest because of the smoke it produces. At times the paraffin is polluted with water and diesel Male, Lower LSM, Urban


Current Lighting Product- Usage

Product UsedCurrently

Most Often Used

Least Often Used

Lapsed usage

1.Candles

2. Firewood

3. Torch

4. Hurricane Lamp

5. Kerosene Tin Lamp

6. Rechargeable light

The most commonly used ‘every day’ lighting product is the kerosene tin lamp as it is cheap to buy and maintain. Candles are considered dangerous since they are not steady when placed on a surface and can easily cause fire as burn out. They are however, the most preferred products for emergency lighting.


Summary of lighting products presently used

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Hurricane / Kerosene lamp

-Cheaper in purchasing -Affordable to maintain-Durable (e.g. Japanese products)-Light is brighter since it is wider than candle

-Frequent maintenance: purchase of paraffin and frequent changing of wick-Health implications: smoke causes flu and coughing and poor light intensity is bad for eyes -Unclean light which makes house and clothes dirty because of the soot-Dangerous as it can burst into flames at any time

Candles -Used in the absence of kerosene-Easy to use since they do not use kerosene (just light them)-Used for reading by children

-Low safety levels, can cause fires easily-In the long run it is expensive compared to kerosene lamp

Torch -Portable and convenient to carry around e.g. in the kitchen -Easy to switch on and off -Good focused light for long distance targeting-Outdoor lighting e.g. when going to the toilet

-Batteries are not durable since they get exhausted very quickly and are therefore expensive

Rechargeable light

-Good bright light -Needs to be recharged frequently, which is inconvenient

Tin kerosene lamp

-Affordable to buy-Consumes little kerosene

-Dim light (poor light intensity)-Health hazard as it emits smoke that fills the whole house-Starts leaking when it rusts


Choice determinants & influencers of current lighting products

Cost of lighting / affordability Convenience when using the light Safety when using the light Current need for light in the household Amount of light emitted Durability / quality and perceived value

for money for the lighting product

The bread winner in the household i.e. father, mother

Usage Determinants Key Influencers

The availability of money is the key determinant of the lighting product used. The bread winner, in consultation with the user (if the user is different) determines the kind of lighting product used.


Current lighting products


Current lighting products used-different settings

I mostly use a kerosene tin lamp (kibatari), I use it at night when I am indoors and sometimes even outside the house like on the veranda Male, Lower LSM, Urban

My children use candles especially for reading Male, Lower LSM, Urban

No, we don’t use firewood for lighting; we only use it for cooking Female, Higher LSM, Rural

In the bedroom, I put it on the table because I want to see where I am sleeping and just keeping it near me for security purposes Male, Higher LSM, Rural

I use the tin lamp (kibatari) in the kitchen, however it emits a lot of smoke and therefore I prefer to use the kerosene lamp because it is cleaner Female, Higher LSM, Rural.


Product Used Overall satisfaction Suggestions for improvement

Candle Bigger candles for more light

Firewood None mentioned

Torch None mentioned

Hurricane lamp Glass to be changed to plastic to prevent breakageGlass to be made thicker and strongerBrighten and whiten the light to make it sufficient for studyingAdd an on and off switch

Kerosene tin lamp Have a glass around it like the hurricane lamp

Rechargeable light

Should not require frequent charging

Very satisfiedNot satisfied

Current Lighting Products-satisfaction rating


Current lighting products- ideal product

The ideal product is perceived to have the following attributes:

– Provide very bright white light

– Be affordable about 10,000 TZS –15,000 TZS (US$ 7.5 – 11.3)

– Not produce any unhealthy emissions

– Not have any negative effect on eyes

Of the key features mentioned, the most important ones are:

– White intense light– Generate its own power– Durable / long lasting– Portable– Electricity bulb shape (Circular shape)– Readily available (sold in electronic shops)– Have warranty– Be made by reputable manufacturers (e.g.

Japanese)

Bright, clean, white and affordable light which fills the whole room is considered as the most ideal.

Key featuresIdeal product

MAIN PRODUCT FINDINGS

TM41

TEST PRODUCT EVALUATIONBefore Placement


Test product usagedemonstration

TM41


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

This lighting product aroused a lot of excitement in respondents. Most of them may have already seen similar lighting concepts but they still found this product very different in its design and charging system. They also found it very relevant to their lighting needs.

This one has many small bulbs unlike the others in the market which have one bulb only and the radio option is very nice Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Test Product evaluation

none very

TM41


Saves on kerosene, better light and easy to charge

What comes to mind when you see this

product

?

Test product association

Good shape

Good size

TM41

Attractive design

Easy to use

Upon seeing the product, respondents immediately anticipated a positive change in their lighting situation. They believed that the product would help them save on costs, have enough and convenient lighting as well as attain a positive image in the community.


1. Affordability

2. Brightness

3. Radio option

4. Two lamps to

illuminate two

different rooms at

the same time

Its light intensity is brighter and better Male, lower LSM,

urban

The lamp has a radio option Male, lower LSM, urban

It has a slot for recharging the radio unlike RY04 Male,

lower LSM, urban

With this product, I will save on certain costs e.g.

kerosene Male, lower LSM, urban

Its battery is good because it does not have recharging

costs…..you just put it outside in the sun to recharge

Male, lower LSM, urban

The two lamps are situated away from the power pack

and can be placed in two different rooms in the house

Male, higher LSM, rural

Test product evaluation likesTM41


1. Black colour

2. No light dimming

option

The colour is not good, black colour is not good…

should be made from different colours e.g. green or

yellow Male, Lower LSM, Urban

The brightness of the light cannot be controlled Male, Higher LSM, Rural

Test Product Evaluation - Dislikes

TM41


Feature Overall rating Comment

Shape The shape is good

Size Good

Design Good

Handling/ Controls Easy to use

Colours Colour of light is good but the product colour of black is not liked

Writing/ labeling Clear labelling

Test Product features evaluation

TM41

The product features got a high rating by respondents as they tied them directly to the functionality of the lighting device. Features were considered to be ease of use, brighter light, flexibility and affordability.

A few respondents had a problem with the black colour of the device but this was not a dislike that could affect purchase intention.


Test Product characteristics

Suggestions for improvement Summary of satisfaction rating

Phone charger – as part of the light

Put a product name on it

Put manufacturer name and give guarantee

Have a provision for changing the light colours

Different light for different moods

Quality of service (lighting power)

Reliability of service- battery life/availability

Uniqueness- new & different

A product for someone like me

Ease of use

The product was rated highly and suggestions for improvement involved value addition as opposed to the basic product components.

TM41


Overall evaluation

Likelihood to purchase

Worth more than other products

Approximate cost

The likelihood to purchase this product was very high even though respondents were concerned about the price because they perceived it to be quite expensive based on overall characteristics. Respondents were of the opinion that the device is worth more than what they currently use / know in the market. On average they would pay US $ 7.5 – 15 for this product even though they believe it is worth more than that.

Because it is the first time I have come across such a product with such a beautiful shape and good lighting. It must be quite expensive Male, Urban, lower LSM

Purchase Intent & Price

US $ 7.5 – 15

TM41


Test productsummary before testing

Respondents rated this product highly even before they tested it; the product was perceived to be of high value. It was viewed as a good improvement to their current lighting situation.

The idea of solar energy was very exciting to respondents, they saw this as a long-term saving for them as kerosene is quite costly.

The product has good features that improves its perception on functionality. At this stage improvement suggestions are more ‘hygienic factors’ rather than core product characteristics.

The product was however perceived as expensive and respondents feared that it may be out of reach for them.

TM41

TEST PRODUCT EVALUATIONAfter Recall


Ratings remained fairly the same after product test with respondents rating the product uniqueness even higher due to the bright light it produced and the phenomenon of solar energy.Respondents were still excited about this product and relevance was rated very high because they felt that its lighting was as good as that of electricity and with no health side effects as found in current lighting products.

Test product- comparative evaluation

Evaluation Before placement After recall

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

TM41


Feature Rating Comment

Product uniqueness I have seen similar products in the market but not this bright and not charged using sunlight

Lighting adequacy It is adequate as it gives a much brighter light than all the lighting products I have

Battery life I used the light for 2 days before charging

Ease of operation I would just switch it on and get the light

Relevance It looks like it is capable of providing the light I need

Durability If taken good care of, it could last for a while

Test product evaluation- general characteristics

TM41

The product still had very high ratings on its key characteristics after respondents tested it in their homes.

Respondents reckoned it would be the solution to their lighting needs and they generally found the product very simple to operate.

The two lamp heads increased flexibility as respondents could use the lamp in two different settings concurrently.


Feature Ratingbefore

Ratingafter

Comment

Shape The shape was liked by many

Size The size was seen as good

Design The design was liked by respondents

Handling/Controls Product was considered easy to use

Colours The colour was seen as good as it does not get dirty easily

Writing/ labeling The labelling was visible to respondents

Test Product features- comparative evaluation

TM41

Product evaluation improved after actual testing, respondents perceived the colour black to be easy to maintain as it does not get dirty easily.


1. Simple to use

2. Convenient

3. Bright light

4. Radio charging

5. Two lamps

6. Solar charging

Because sometimes when I don’t have kerosene and a

match box, I would just switch it on and get the light

Male, lower LSM, urban

Because it gives a much brighter light than all the lighting

products I have Male, lower LSM, urban

To be honest, I liked everything about the product, the

slot to charge a radio, the lamps can be placed on the

roof using a hook, the light from two bulbs and it can be

charged using solar Female, lower LSM, urban

Test Product Evaluation-Likes

TM41


1. NONE

Respondents had no specific dislikes for the product

except for additional features that they suggested to be

included in the product characteristics like a TV charger

I liked everything Female, Higher LSM, Rural

No, I wouldn’t increase or decrease anything, I

would leave it as it is Female, higher LSM, Rural

Test Product Evaluation Dislikes& Suggestions for Improvement

TM41

Suggestions for improvement: Now that the product can charge a radio, respondents would like its design to be

modified to include a complete radio function on it Respondents would like the device to have a slot for charging the mobile phone and the

TV as well It would be nice if I could use it for lighting, listening to radio and watching TV on the

same product other than purchasing another one that can power a TV set


Test product evaluationproduct usage

It was easy using this product, I could just switch it on and it gives light in the living room and bedroom Male, Lower LSM, Urban

I would like one bulb in the living room and another in the bedroom Female, Lower LSM, Urban

In all settings outside and inside the homestead at night Female, Higher LSM, Rural

TM41

Respondents used this product in many different settings including living room, bedroom, kitchen and even outside on the patio. Respondents specifically liked this product because it has two lamps and therefore could be used in two different settings simultaneously. The light is bright enough for various different lighting usages and respondents could definitely see themselves using this product in the future. Of concern was the price of the product; most respondents thought they would not be able to afford the product.


Though the product was considered very good, the likelihood to purchase was not very high because of a low purchasing power.

This product is more expensive than all other lighting products that I have ever heard of Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Test product evaluation- pricing & purchase intent

Feature Before placement After recall


Worth more than other

products

none very

TM41


Test product pricing scenarios

Pricing Scenarios Amount

US $

Response Reasons

Willingness to pay more than perceived price mentioned before placement

7.5 – 15 Are willing to pay more due to brightness of light

Willingness to purchase at the RRP 69.8 Cannot afford it

Lack of purchasing power

Willingness to purchase if financing is available to offset part of purchase and maintenance cost

Will buy the product because it has many advantages

TM41

As happy as respondents are with this product and they appreciate its worth and its perceived and tested benefits to their lighting situation, most cannot afford it. They are enthusiastic to pay more for the product but it is simply beyond reach for most of them regardless of socio-economic status.

However, with financing, most respondents are willing to invest in this product even those who quoted a very low price at the initial stage before placement. They all believe the lighting device is worth the sacrifice, especially because they are looking into the long-term benefits that they would enjoy using solar energy. In addition, the two lamps can be used simultaneously and the device has radio charging component.

UR 83




UR 83


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

In the lower LSM specifically, there were mentions of lamps similar to the UR83 as having been seen in the local market. This product is therefore not new to this consumer group but it is certainly relevant and made for them.

Test Product evaluation UR 83

none very



product

?

Test product associationUR 83

Portable - easy to carry

Very portableEasy to handle

Attractive colour

Respondents were initially drawn to the convenience and the functionality of the product; first impression was on the product’s portability and ease of use. They saw the product as a device that would improve their lighting situation immediately.

Looks like a phone


1. Portability

2. Good design

3. Modern

4. Very good light

5. No health problems

6. Detachable

charging system

It is exciting because of its portability. It is like a mobile phone. It is small and easy to carry around Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Easy to handle as you can hang it anywhere Male, Lower LSM, Urban

I like its size and the fact that its light is very bright despite its small size Male, Higher LSM, Rural

I think the product is new and modern, a lighting product that has a very good light because the product is meant to provide a good and bright light without any health problems Male, Higher LSM, Rural

Charging system device can stand alone or hang on a wall, roof or carried on the wrist Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Test product evaluation likesUR 83


1. Position of bulb

on the lamp

2. Yellow light

3. Availability of the

batteries

Having the light at the centre. It would be much better if the

light was at the top because it would spread more widely

than when it is at the centre Male, Higher LSM, Rural

Its yellow light wasn’t good enough for me Male, Rural,

Lower LSM

The batteries are not readily available because I have

never seen them before Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Test Product Evaluation – Dislikes

UR 83



Shape I find the shape very interesting it looks like a phone

Size The size is very portable, the user might not get any problems carrying it

Design The lighting bulb should be put at the top rather than at the centre of the product

Handling/ Controls I think the product is easy to use because it has understandable functions

Colours The colour is attractive

Writing / Labelling The writing and labelling are easy to understand


UR 83

Overall the product was generally well received; respondents liked its features, they viewed the features as working together to increase applicability of the device to their daily lighting needs such as the small size increasing portability, the design promoting style and improving their social status.

Few improvements were suggested on placement of the bulb; respondents likened this product to the torch light they are familiar with and they preferred the bulb position of the torch because they regarded it as more convenient

“The only feature which is not so interesting is the light, I would have loved it more if the light was put at the top rather than at the centre of the product” male, urban, lower LSM

© 2008 International Finance Corporation – The World Bank All Rights Reserved TANZANIA68

Test Product characteristicsUR 83


The light would be brighter if the bulb is at the top

If the product is not well distributed by the manufacturer, it will certainly be an issue





Ease of use

A good number of respondents claimed to have previously seen a light similar to the UR 83. They otherwise still believed that the product is good and were more worried about issues like its availability in the local market. The position of the bulb remains the main suggestion for improvement on the product at this stage.


Overall evaluation



Price willing to pay for product

The product rated highly on purchase intention and respondents perceived it to be of better value than the current lighting products available to them.

UR 83 Purchase Intent & Price

US$ 34 – 38



UR 83

The product generally received a high rating before placement; relevance, clarity and excitement were especially high while uniqueness was daunted by the fact that similar products had been seen in the market before

I have seen a product like this one before that looks similar to it, especially the torches. It is an ordinary product used by low income earners like us Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Product features were highly rated too, respondents perceived the product as handy and useful especially for moving around as a task light in the night. The product was also regarded as trendy in general design.

Purchase intent is very high at this stage; of importance is the light intensity, the health benefits and the pocket friendly charging system. The only suggestion for improvement at this stage is on the positioning of the bulb.



Ratings were much lower after product placement; the device did not produce a bright light as had been anticipated by most respondents. Most respondents consider the product to be of lower relevance. This is because the light cannot entirely replace their current lighting product, using of the device as a supplementary light notwithstanding. The product would be outside mainly while attending to nature calls in the night.

UR 83 Test product comparative evaluation


Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity



Lighting adequacy It is different because its light is not good as it is not clear enough, it is yellowish unlike other products I use Male, Higher LSM, Rural

Battery life/ availability I am not so sure but they might be available in the shops that sell electronics Female, Lower LSM, Urban

Ease of operation It is easy to use and easy to recharge Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Relevance Very relevant to my lifestyle because it is something you can hang anywhere, like on the roof. It can be charged by solar which is ideal for me as I don’t have the electricity female, lower LSM, rural

Durability Depending on how I would handle it, it could be durable for three to five years male, lower LSM, rural

UR 83Test product evaluation- general characteristics

The product was fairly rated by the respondents after they tested it. Most product characteristics fitted within the respondents’ needs except for the light intensity and colour that were not satisfactory to many. This in turn affected product relevance to the consumers. It was however clear to them on how to use the product.



Ratingafter

Comment

Shape The shape is okay

Size The size is okay you can even put it in your pocket just like a phone

Design The design is good but would be better if the light would be put at the top not at the centre

Handling/Controls It is something you can hang anywhere, like from the roof

Colours The outside color is good

Writing/ labeling It is good the way it looks, it is easy to read.

Test Product features comparative evaluation

UR 83

Ratings remained the same after product testing

Respondents would still prefer modifying the position of the bulb to look like that of a torch


1. Portability

2. Design

3. Choice of light

intensity

4. Clarity

5. Solar energy

The size is okay, you can even put it in your pocket just like a phone Male, Higher LSM, Rural

The product is easy to handle and to use; I didn’t have any problem while using it Male, Higher LSM, Rural

I like everything like the size which is portable, colours used as they are attractive ones, except the light which was not good to me Male, Higher LSM, Rural

I used the product, and there are no comparison as this one is much better because you can increase or decrease the size of the light depending on your usage Male, Lower LSM, urban

No cost as a solar charging even if you don’t have money you can simply place it outside and charge it Female, Lower LSM, Urban

Test Product Evaluation – Likes

UR 83


1. Unsatisfactory light

intensity

2. Yellow light

3. Position of bulb

Its light is not good and not so clear or bright, it would affect my eyes. I

didn’t like its light that is why it is not relevant to my lifestyle Male,

Higher LSM, Rural

Its light, I didn’t like it because it was yellowish. I dislike the light

because it is not bright enough which means I will need to use more

than one product Male, Higher LSM, Rural

The design is good but would be better if the bulb would be put at the

top not at the centre Male, Higher LSM, Rural


UR 83

Suggestions for improvement These are mainly centred around the light intensity. In spite of being happy with choice of light intensity,

overall, most respondents did not find the light satisfactory. Respondents prefer to have: Clear and colourless light, wider coverage, the bulb to be at the top of the lamp, brighter light.

I would put the light source at the top, increase the size of the product and change the color of the light to very bright and clear not yellowish the way it is Male, Higher LSM, Rural

I would remove the light and replace it with one that is clear and colorless.

I would also replace the light source (big bulb) with one which is wider so that it gives a very wide light.

Because the light is generally bad, I was impressed by almost everything but the light Male, Lower LSM, Urban



UR 83

Respondents would use this product in different settings but mainly as a supplementary light for moving around the home particularly while going to the pit latrine, taking an evening walk or during emergency situations. The light could also be used for other routine lighting needs such as in the kitchen, living room and bedroom. These would however be minimal as most

respondents feel this device does not produce very intense lighting.

I would use it for lighting when I am outside the house or when I am searching for something in the house while it is dark Male, rural, higher LSM

Inside the house; in the bedroom while preparing for bed and in the sitting room. I also used it while going to the toilet Male, urban, lower LSM

It is also easy to use in times of emergency Male, rural, higher LSM


Though the product features were considered very good, the likelihood to purchase was not very high. Functionally, respondents were not satisfied by the light functionally. The product was also not considered worth more than current products in the market in regard to light intensity.

UR 83 Test product evaluation pricing & purchase intent




products

none very

KO 13




KO 13


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

The product was generally received with a lot of excitement especially about the solar charging component and the overall design. Uniqueness was however not rated highly as similar products are available in the local market.

Test Product evaluation

none very

KO 13


Light like flowers


product

?


It is worth more

than other productsAttractive

KO 13

Good design

Light like

decorations

The physical features of KO13 are the most striking to respondents. Colour and the double lamps impressed the respondents and the product is viewed to be more than just a lighting device i.e. adds aesthetic aspect to the house.


1. Affordability

2. Flexibility

3. Ease of control

4. Features

I like the charging system since you just put it in the sun and

later you use it without incurring any cost, I like the way the

product can stand on the table and twist, also the switch can

be placed to control either one or both lamps Male, Higher

LSM, Rural

It uses solar power for charging and since I don’t have

electricity, I find it more convenient for someone like me who

doesn’t have electricity Female, Lower LSM, Urban

I like it because the light is very good for lighting inside the

house and its design is also attractive; someone can fail to

identify it easily as a lighting product Female, Higher LSM,

Rural

Test product evaluation likesKO 13


1. None Judging by the features of the product, respondents

do not have any specific dislike for the product

I can’t judge it by the little I have seen, at the

moment there is nothing that I dislike about the

product Male, Lower LSM, Urban


KO 13


Feature Overall rating

Comment

Shape It is good, in fact people may fail to realize that it is a lighting device

Size I think it is OK, except if the lamp size was increased a bit then it would produce more light

Design Good design which is not common and the long wire which you can direct as you wish

Controls/Handling The product is easy to handle and to use

Colours The colour is like the colour of a flower

Writing/ labeling The labelling is fine


KO 13

The product features were well liked by respondents except for the size which was perceived to affect the light intensity. Respondents associated the size of the product with the kind of light it would produce.




Increase the size of the solar panel

Reduce the glare of the light

Increase size of the lamp for brighter light





Ease of use

Respondents were sceptical about the quality of light that the device would produce. This perception was based on the size of the lamp where a bigger lamp is perceived to produce a stronger light and vice versa.Among the suggestions for improvement were an increase in size of either the lamp or the solar panel and reduction of the glare produced by the light.

KO 13


Overall evaluation



Approximate cost

Purchase intent was very high for this product even though respondents did not find the product worth more than other products currently available in the market. Respondents quoted a very low price for this product compared to its retail price.


US$ 15

KO 13



This product scored highly on physical features; respondents found it attractive, trendy and very easy to use. The size was however perceived to be limiting and it was largely viewed as not adequate to meet their lighting needs.

The product was generally perceived as cheap since respondents offered a very low price for it. Based on this price offer, most respondents have a high intention to purchase the product.

The concept is not entirely new in this market as many people have encountered similar lighting devices in the local market. Respondents are nevertheless excited by the idea of lighting at no cost by the use of solar energy.

KO 13



The product ratings are lower as respondents tested functionality. The light produced by the device is not sufficient either because it is too glary or because the battery life is short. Respondents however appreciate the solar energy and view it as a long-term investment on low cost lighting.

Test product comparative evaluation


Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

KO 13



Product uniqueness I can’t compare it with other devices available because this one is much better

Lighting adequacy The light is good and enough

Battery life I don’t have to spend on things like batteries

Ease of operation It is easy to use

Relevance This new modern lighting device is very relevant since it has the light that the products I currently use can’t give

Durability The light looks durable


KO 13

The device was rated highly on characteristics and as much as some respondents were not happy with the light intensity, most were happy that it was better and less risky to their health than the products they currently use.



Ratingafter

Comment

Shape Good

Size Portable

Design Attractive

Controls/ handling Easy

Colours Appealing

Writing/ labelling No problem


KO 13

Product features were rated well after testing. Respondents described all features very positively showing how these contributed to the overall functionality.


1. Better light than

current lighting

used

2. No health side

effects

3. Clean environment

4. Attractive device

Its light is much brighter and better than that of the

lighting products I use which may encourage the kids

to study without being affected Female, Lower LSM,

Urban

No bad health effects on both my family’s and my own

health compared to the smoke I inhale while using the

kerosene lamp or candle Female, Higher LSM, Rural

It emits no smoke that would make clothes dirty like

the other lighting products I use and it also leaves the

house smoke free Male, Higher LSM, Rural

The product is attractive, people couldn’t resist it Male,

Lower LSM, Urban


KO 13


1. Strong glare

2. Battery life

3. Small solar panel

4. Lamps not sufficient

If you look directly at it, it hurts the eyes so if there are any

changes to be made I think that should be considered Male,

Higher LSM, Rural

I am not an expert in batteries but I think the bigger it is the

higher its capacity in holding power, I think the batteries

should be made bigger so that after charging it can last for

some good hours Female, Higher LSM, Rural


KO 13

Suggestions for improvement: Incorporate an anti-glare to prevent it from irritating the eyes Increase the size of the solar panel or that of the lamp for brighter, longer lasting light The lamps should be more than just two to cover the whole household



Respondents found this product very easy to use and also very clear on its benefits. The two lamps could be used in different settings simultaneously and

this is very beneficial to the consumer. Settings include all rooms in the house i.e. bedroom, kitchen and living room. Respondents could also use this device as a

task light for using outside the house as the cable is quite long.

KO 13

I would use the product at night and mainly inside the house as the cables are long so that

the lamps can be situated using a hook on the roof Female, Higher LSM, Rural

When preparing for bed and also for going out at night Female, Higher LSM, Rural

Inside the house; in the bedroom while preparing for bed and in the sitting room while eating Male, Lower LSM, Urban


Purchase intent was still high and the light was considered worth more than other lighting products after the test period. Respondents were not completely satisfied with the glare and intensity of the light but they still perceived the product to be better than what they are currently exposed to.

Test product evaluation pricing & purchase intent




products

none very

KO 13



Pricing Scenarios Amount US$

Response Reasons


15 It is worth more than what was originally quoted

Willingness to purchase at the RRP 46 Price is worth the quality although may strain a little


This would help with budget constraints

Willingness to purchase without solar panel

(KO13/ HI65 only )

23 No it wouldn’t be economically viable

Willingness to purchase solar panel separately As a last resort the product is bought without the solar panel

Purchase price (without solar panel) with monthly AC running cost

24.2 Not willing to incur monthly charge

KO 13

Like for most other solar charged products, respondents were not interested in purchasing the product without the solar panel. This is because most of them do not have electricity connection and therefore would not benefit from the AC charging option

Generally, respondents (even those who rated much lower before testing) were happy with the retail price and were willing to purchase the product although most felt that the price would strain their budget

The option of financing is readily welcome by all respondents who can and who cannot afford the product at the recommended retail price



Pricing Scenarios Amount

US$

Response Reasons


34-38 The product is worth more than they had mentioned before testing

Willingness to purchase at the RRP 48 Most respondents are willing to pay this amount for the product


Most respondents, including those who can afford the product at its RRP are interested in financing

UR83

Respondents were generally comfortable with the price of this product despite demonstrating a low purchase intent.

Interestingly, they were all interested in getting financial assistance including those who said that they could afford the product at the retail price. Those who cannot afford the product at the retail price will only consider buying it if there is financial assistance, especially if this means that they will spending less in the long run.

HI 65




HI 65


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

HI65 was not considered very unique even though respondents believed it was very relevant and exciting. The respondents were however very clear on what to expect from the product and how to use it.

I have seen a product like this one before that looks similar to it especially the torches, it is an ordinary product used by low income earners like us.

Test Product evaluation HI 65

none very



product

?


Shape is good

and unique

Attractive colour,

I like its shape

HI 65

Nice looking as it has a long neck

Easy to use and handle

Initial attention was on the product’s physical features like shape, design and colour; all which were favoured by respondents. The shape was specifically very exciting to respondents.


1. Affordability- Solar

charging

2. Flexibility of the

lamp

3. Portability

The thing I like the most is the way it can be charged using

solar, which is simple and also without any costs Female,

higher LSM, Rural

I like its lighting and the fact that it is light to carry around

Female, Higher LSM, Rural

It is easy to use and you direct the light according to your

needs Female, Lower LSM, Rural

I can easily carry it around in the night to whenever I want

to go and it can be bent in all directions depending on your

wish Male, Lower LSM, Urban

Test product evaluation likesHI 65


1. Light brightness

2. Light colour

Its light has a slightly yellow colour. It is not as bright as

the torch Male, Higher LSM, Rural

I may only light one area like the sitting room or the

bedroom but not the entire household unless I have two

of the lamps, the device is not big enough for the light to

spread in all areas Female, Lower LSM, Urban


HI 65


Feature Overall rating

Comment

Shape It is good and unique

Size The size is handy, portable

Design It is new and up to date

Controls/ ease of use It is very easy to use

Colours The colours are good and very attractive, it’s like décor inside a house, it’s very appealing

Writing/ labeling I cannot see anything wrong with the writings and labels


HI 65

The product rates very highly on physical features and similarly to the first impression, respondents perceive the HI 65 as a product that would be beautiful and easy to use.




Brighten (whiten) light e.g..

put florescent tube

Strengthen wattage of light

Increase size of light to

produce more light





Ease of use

The intensity of light produced was an issue with this product. Respondents either did not like the colour of the light or its intensity. Other than that, they were happy with the other product characteristics.

HI 65


Overall evaluation



Approximate cost

Likelihood to purchase the product decreased by respondents’ perception of the product as being very expensive; they believed though, that the product is worth more than thoses they are currently exposed to.


US$ 7.5

HI 65



This product was rated well on its physical features however, respondents did not find the light it

produced bright enough for their overall household use. Suggestions for improvement were all

around ways of increasing the intensity of the light.

They did not quite use this light for a specific purpose as their lighting needs are more general

and broad in different areas of the home. The light intensity that the HI65 produces makes

respondents want to use the light as a torch. Portability therefore ranks high amongst the positive

attributes.

The product was perceived to have a high price based on its physical features and difference to

what respondents have seen in the market so far. However, most respondents also saw the

benefit of the solar charging system and how that would in the long-term reduce their energy

expenditure.

Purchase intent at this stage was however very low.

HI 65



Attribute ratings remained the same after the product was tested; excitement remained high as respondents began to assign more specific use to the device such as reading.



Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

HI 65

none very



Product uniqueness You can choose the kind of light that you use. You can also reduce it or increase it as you wish

Lighting adequacy It is not as bright as the other light for the house

Battery life The batteries last seven hours and can be charged the following day, but I wish I had to charge it only once a week

Ease of operation It is of good size and so its handling and use are easy

Relevance The light is only sufficient for reading if you are sitting next to the light

Durability It is all about handling, I would give it two years


HI 65

The lighting adequacy remained an issue even after product test; as much as respondents were excited about the product being different from what they are currently exposed to, they were not too keen to invest in a device that will not fully meet their lighting needs unless they bought several of them to boost the lighting adequacy.



Ratingafter

Comment

Shape The shape is OK, it’s a unique one

Size The size is OK too, it is easy to carry around

Design It is beautifully designed but the light is weak

Controls/ Handling They are fine, I am able to adjust the light the way I want to

Colours Colours are very attractive

Writing/ labeling The writings are attractive though I do not understand what they mean


HI 65

Product features still scored very highly despite respondents’ sentiments on the lighting adequacy. The product was regarded as trendy and up-to-date.


1. Affordability- solar

energy

2. Multiple light

settings

3. Easy to operate

4. Flexibility of lamp

This product is new and different from all the products I

have seen because it has a number of lights that can be

used under all settings in the house. The most different

thing is the way of charging it which is by solar Male,

Lower LSM, Urban

The product is so easy to operate, the product is

rechargeable by solar which will reduce my purchasing

costs like that of kerosene Female, Higher LSM, Rural

The manner in which you recharge the battery and the

way you can direct the lighting in any direction Female,

Lower LSM, Urban


HI 65


Daily recharging

Lighting in-adequacy

Having to recharge it daily after using it for 6 to 7 hours

Male, Higher LSM, Rural

The light is not strong enough to meet my needs

Female, Higher LSM, Rural


HI 65

Suggestions for improvement Improve on the intensity of the light either through:

– Increasing the number of bulbs and making them wider and brighter – Increasing the overall area covered the light– Use fluorescent lighting to produce whiter brighter light

I would increase the bulbs and make them wider and brighter, enabling many people to use it for reading at a go Male, Higher LSM, Rural

Change the shape to that of a spot light because they play the same roles; to make it easily portable Overall, respondents prefer a lighting product that can also allow them to use other electronic devices

such as mobile phones, radios and TVs



Respondents assigned more specific uses to this product as a supplementary lighting source rather than a primary one. The light intensity produced cannot support a general household’s lighting needs. The device is therefore used more for minor tasks like attending to nature calls at night, searching for lost items, reading for one person and in the bedroom where bright lighting is not very much required. Due to the overall need, the light would still be used for general household requirements although these would not be met sufficiently.

HI 65

I would use it mainly inside the house like in the living room and bedroom for my children during their revision time Female, higher LSM, rural

Where I live; in the sitting room, bedroom but especially when going out at night

Male, urban, lower LSM


Respondents were reluctant to commit on their purchase intent and this was fully subject to the retail cost of the product. The device was considered unique in its physical features but not worth more than other products already seen in the market due to its low light intensity.

Test product evaluation- pricing & purchase intent




products

HI 65

none very




Response Reasons


7.5 On condition that it’s not much more Because it’s worth it

Willingness to purchase at the RRP 20.2 A good price but will strain / struggle a little to achieve this


It would make it much easier to do

Willingness to purchase without solar panel (KO13/ HI65 only )

12.1 Not worth it without solar

Willingness to purchase solar panel separately Will be expensive switching to solar

Purchase price (without solar panel) with monthly AC running cost

16.7 Financial constraints would not permit running costs so this is not an option

HI 65

The product was generally considered fairly priced even though the price respondents were willing to pay initially was much lower than the retail price.

Financing option was considered acceptable by those who felt unable to raise the retail price. Purchase of the device without the solar component is not an option since this is the selling point.

Respondents balance the investment with the long-term benefit of using solar energy.

RY 04




RY 04


Overall evaluation

Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

Respondents have encountered similar products in the market however this one was seen as unique in terms of its intensity of light, design and colour. The product’s relevance was limited because it requires electricity for recharging. The excitement was high because of the brightness of the light and the portability of the device.

Test Product evaluation RY 04

none very



product

?

Test product associationRY 04

It is not as new or so different from those

available in the market

I can use it outdoors I like it as it is

easy to use

Considering its design, it should be

very durable

I feel I should own it, it is really good

I like its good design

It is worth noting that most of the respondents expressed excitement over the possibility of using the product outdoors as well as indoors.


1. High light intensity/

brightness

2. Portability

3. Design

The light intensity is white, bright and attractive Female,

urban, lower LSM

The product is portable, you can carry it to any place

like the toilet or bathroom

Male, rural, higher LSM

I like its design and the fact that it can produce such a

bright light


As compared to the kerosene lamp and the candle, this

light is better and sufficient

Female, urban, lower LSM

Test product evaluation likesRY 04


1. Electric charging

system

2. Writings/ labelling

3. Batteries not easily

available

The writing is not easily understood, since we cannot read

the language, it should be in Swahili

Male, Lower LSM, Urban

I don’t have electricity in my house….it will force me to go

somewhere to charge it


The batteries are not easily available because I have never

seen them in shops

Male, Lower LSM, Urban


RY 04


Feature Overall

rating

Comment

Shape The shape is good

Size Portable

Design Simple and good

Controls/ Handling I understand how to use it because it is easy

Colours Exciting, the white light colour is good

Writing/ labeling Visible but the language cannot be understood, should be in Swahili


RY 04

The only feature that was not well rated for this product was the writing on the device. Though it is clear and visible, it cannot be understood by the respondents because of the language used (Chinese).




Change the charging system

to solar rather than electricity

Change the language to

something understandable

like Swahili or English





Ease of use

Even though the batteries are perceived to have a long life span, they are thought to be unavailable or too expensive if need arises to replace them. Similar products already exist in the market and thus it is not perceived as new. Most of the respondents suggest that the product should be charged using solar power rather than electricity because they don’t like the prospect of asking neighbours for charging services.

RY 04


Overall evaluation



Approximate cost

The likelihood to purchase was not very high because most of the respondents would prefer solar recharging methods due to lack of direct access to electricity. It was also not entirely perceived to be worth more than other products because it is not a completely new product while it also involves additional running costs.


US$ 1.5 – 3

RY 04

none very



RY 04

The product is not a new concept in this market as similar products already exist. However

there were some distinct features associated with this product such as brighter light, several

bulbs rather than one, different colour, and it has a square shaped handle rather than a round

one.

The respondents were especially excited about its portability and appeared to value a lighting

device which they can use both outdoors as well as indoors, especially to go to the toilet and

bathroom. It was generally viewed as a product which is handy.

The electric charging aspect of the product was not exciting as most of the respondents do not

have access to electricity and would have to ask their neighbours and friends to charge it for

them.

Suggestions for improvement at this stage were to introduce a solar charging system and

change the writings to something they can understand such as Swahili or English.



The rating on uniqueness and relevance improved after usage mainly because the brightness of the light produced by the lighting device was beyond what they had expected and was sufficient for their needs.



Uniqueness

Relevance

Excitement

Clarity

RY 04

none very



Product uniqueness

I saw one that resembles RY04, someone was charging it in some electrical shop, I just admired it from afar Male, rural, higher LSM

Lighting adequacy

It is really good and sufficient, I was very pleased, even my child was very excited because he could use it to read Female, urban, lower LSM

It was sufficient for both my indoor and outdoor lighting needs Female, urban, lower LSM

Battery life I think it is strong because I haven’t charged it ever since you left Male, rural, higher LSM

Ease of operation I didn’t get any problems while using this product, it was very easy to use Male, rural, higher LSM

Relevance It is very suitable because I don’t have money to buy kerosene Female, urban, lower LSM

Durability It looks durable, but this also depends on how you handle it and if you will be able to prevent children from tampering with it Female, urban, lower LSM


RY 04

Some respondents have seen or used a similar product before (a rechargeable torch), thus it is not entirely unique. The light produced by the device was adequate especially because most of the respondents have their toilets and /or bathrooms outside and require a portable lighting device to use these facilities at night.



Ratingafter

Comment

Shape Good, can be placed nicely on the table or hung behind the door

Size A normal and portable size

Design Four sides make it secure, when you put it on the table it can’t roll over and fall

Handling/Controls Easy to understand

Colours Not common, unique, attractive

Writing/ labeling Should be translated into English, Swahili or Arabic


RY 04

The perception of the respondents interviewed on the different product features does not change after they have tested it. Only the writings were rated poorly.


1. Brightness of the

light

2. Design

3. Ease of use

4. Convenient shape

I liked the light intensity most Female, urban, lower LSM

I like its light and design, the light was very bright, I really

liked it Female, urban, lower LSM

The shape and the make are good, it is easy to use, I was

able to put it off and on Female, rural, higher LSM

I like everything like the light provided, the size of the

torch, the shape is good as it can be placed nicely on the

table Male, rural, higher LSM


RY 04


Respondents were not satisfied with the electric charging

system as they are not connected to the electric grid.

Nevertheless they were still able to charge the device from

neighbours and friends despite the inconvenience this causes.

Test Product Evaluation Dislikes& Suggestions for improvement

RY 04

Electric charging system

Suggestions for improvement:

The device should be charged with solar energy instead of electricity like the other test

products to reduce the inconvenience of going to charge it in someone else’s house

Change the writing to a more appropriate language, such as Swahili or English or Arabic as

no one can understand the Chinese writing

The colour could be changed to black since it does not get dirty easily



RY 04

The product is convenient to carry around for use both indoors and outdoors Male, rural, higher LSM

At night I would use it both indoors by hanging it up in the living room to make sure the light spreads enough in the room, and outdoors by carrying it around Male, rural, higher LSM

It was easy to operate and good to use when I would go out to the toilet Female, urban, lower LSM

In the bedroom, living room and in the kitchen by hanging it up. I also use it when walking on the road at night and when going to the toilet Female, urban, lower LSM

This product was initially perceived as a product which is handy

especially for going out at night. However after testing the product, they

found that they could use it indoors such as in the living room, the

bedroom and the kitchen. It was very easy to use and was especially

relevant to use while going out to the toilet at night.

Toilets situated outside


The likelihood to purchase the product after having tested it was higher because of the quality of light it produced. It was perceived to produce brighter light than the products currently available. Respondents were however not sure whether it is worth more than other products as those who have seen similar products before have never inquired about the cost nor did they test them.

Test product evaluation pricing & purchase intent




products

RY 04

none very




Response Reasons


1.5 – 3 Not willing because of financial constraints

Willingness to purchase at the RRP 4.7 Not willing because they cannot afford it The additional running costs


Are very willing because financial constraints was their main deterrent from purchasing it

RY 04

Most of the respondents interviewed were not willing to pay more than the perceived price mentioned before

placement mainly because of financial constraints.

Most of them were also not willing to purchase the product at the recommended retail price because they could

not afford it. They were also deterred by the additional expense of AC charging that they would have to incur.

However all the respondents who were not willing to purchase it at the RRP were very willing to purchase if

financing was available to offset part of the purchase and maintenance costs.

SUMMARY OF PRODUCT EVALUATION


Insights

Most lighting concepts are not new to this market; respondents are already exposed to rechargeable battery products. The solar energy recharging method and the product designs are the main differentiating factors for the test products.

The Tanzanian market is very sensitive to the health benefits of the test lighting products. These products score well because they do not emit any smoke, which is considered as the key disadvantage of current lighting products. However, some products e.g. the KO13, are associated with health risks to the eyes caused by glary or dim lights and this is a main point of concern in this market.

Cost, especially long-term running cost is also a key consideration made by the Tanzanian consumer; most solar charged products score highly in this respect, whereas the AC power option is not considered by many due to lack of connection to the electricity grid.

The product retail price is important, but value for money is key. Generally the products preferred by the respondents are out of their range in price. The consumer is however willing to purchase the tested products if the option of financing would be available.

Overall, respondents prefer a lighting product that can also meet their need to use electronic devices like radios, mobile phones, fridges and TVs.


Products Tested

TM41 RY04 HI 65 UR83 KO13

Average hours product is used during test period (5 days)

4 – 5 hrs 2 – 4 hrs 3 – 5 hrs 1 – 3 hrs 3 – 5 hrs

Average hours product is used before subsequent recharge (requiring recharge)

6 – 8 hrs 6 hrs 5 hrs 6 – 9 hrs 6 hrs

Average hours product is recharged daily

6 – 7 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs

General description of weather during recharge of test product

Mostly Clear

Occasionally Clear

Heavy cloud cover

Test productaverage lighting hours


Test productaverage lighting hours

Lighting products in Tanzania were used exclusively in the evenings.

As the UR83 was mainly viewed as a supplementary lighting device for minor tasks, it was

used for the least number of hours as compared to the other products. Some people did not

charge it at all throughout the entire 5 days while others charged it only charged it once or

twice.

TM41 on the other hand was used for the most number of hours each evening as it was

used as a primary lighting device. RY04 was only recharged once by one of the

respondents, the rest of them never recharged the product during the entire testing period.

The usage hours and recharging patterns however were based more on the normal usage

habits rather than on actual battery life.


Test product overall evaluation

This product has a high rating amongst lighting devices in Tanzania; respondents did not have a problem with any particular component and only suggested value adding changes which do not affect the original product design.

Cost is however a main cause of concern; this group of respondents cannot afford this product unless financing is available to them. With financing or a more affordable offer on the product, purchase intent would increase significantly.

The product’s capability to charge a radio got respondents wishing for more, including charging mobile phones and TV systems.

Overall, the product stands a high chance in this market with a proper marketing mix and a few general improvements.

TM41



RY 04

This is not a new concept to the respondents as they have come across similar products

before. However this product differentiates itself from the existing ones in the high light intensity it

produces, in its shape and colours, and in the numerous bulbs it has.

This product was relevant to the respondents because of its portability and ease of handling. It

was mainly a supplementary lighting device used to go out of the house at night especially since

their toilets and bathrooms are outside.

The product features received high ratings except for the writing as it is in Chinese and cannot

be understood.

Despite registering a high purchase intent, most of the respondents were not willing to purchase

it at the RRP as they perceive the price to be much higher than that of the torches currently

available in the market. With financial assistance however consumers are willing to purchase the

product.



This product arouses a lot of excitement in the market, respondents are very clear on how to operate it and what to expect from it. However, respondents deem it generally weak in functionality. They appreciate the physical features and the overall design but find the light intensity very low.

The price is also acceptable although most respondents would still pursue the financing option.

Purchase intent is generally very low as most respondents do not believe the device would meet their lighting needs adequately.

HI65 may therefore not stand a very high chance in this market as respondents’ primary need is a cost effective improvement to their current lighting situation.

HI 65



UR 83

Feature ratings for this product remain the same after testing as respondents perceive its features in exactly the same way before and after recall. The features make the product convenient to use as they promote portability and ease of operation, the product is considered stylish and handy. Issues around the location of the bulb remain contentious with some respondents still preferring the bulb at the top like that of a torch.

The product is however receiving very low ratings on functionality, this is mainly on its light intensity. Most respondents find the product too dim and even unhealthy for the eyes. The light does not cover a wide enough area and the yellow light is also not of much preference to most respondents who would prefer a whiter brighter light.

As a result, purchase intent is low for this product as respondents do not regard it worth more than other lighting devices that they are familiar with.



Overall, this product is rated well by Tanzanian respondents; it clearly communicates an improvement to their lighting needs and excitement is quite high especially on the product features.

The product however, has its main flaw on its functionality, respondents feel it has too much glare that irritates the eyes during use and the light is not adequate enough to cover a large area. This could have a long-term negative effect on its uptake in this market if not corrected

The two lamps and the solar charging system are the key selling points for this product; respondents are motivated by the long-term benefit of having two lamps at no running costs.

The product price is generally acceptable although most respondents would be keen to explore the financing option to ease their budgetary constraints.

KO 13

RECOMMENDATIONS


General product preference overview

Amongst all the respondents that were interviewed, the following were the most preferred lighting devices:

- TM 41: Main drivers were light intensity, simultaneous usage in two different rooms, possibility to charge other devices, no running costs

- KO 13: Main driver was having two lamps at no running costs

- RY 04: Main drivers were portability, ease of handling and high light intensity

Amongst all the respondents that were interviewed, the following were the least preferred lighting devices:

- HI 65: Main barriers were its small area coverage and the light is not bright enough which irritates the eyes

- UR 83: Main barriers were that the light it produces is too dim and yellowish

TM 41 KO 13 UR 83RY 04 HI 65

Decreasing preference


Product with the highest preference

TM41 has the highest preference in this market, the key selling points for this product are as follows:

• Solar charging energy- cost free running• Very bright light that is sufficient for all household needs• Two portable lamps for flexibility of settings and usage, the light can be used in two

different rooms simultaneously• Possibility to charge other appliances i.e. radio

Unlike the other tested products, this lighting device does not have any specific problem with its components according to the Tanzanian respondents. Rather, respondents’ suggestions for improvements are more focused on additional value components that will make the device more robust in its functionality e.g. charging of additional appliances like mobile phones.

Respondents are very clear on the benefits of this light and how it

would improve their current lighting situation, key benefits are:– Lighting intensity, health benefits and cost - free running


Product with the lowest preference

This product’s low preference is mainly based on its overall functionality; the light it produces is too dim and yellowish to function even as a supplementary task light. respondents fear that it would have a long-term effect on their eyes.

Respondents compare this device to the torch light they are familiar with and find it more aesthetically appealing but less functional based on the position of the bulb and the intensity of the light.

This product stands a low chance in this market if no adaptations are made to improve the functionality of the product. Our recommendations are therefore to give the product a clear, colourless and brighter light, wider coverage and move the bulb to the top of the lamp.


Barriers to use of preferred product

The key barrier to the use of the TM41 is its cost of purchase; the product is perceived to be too expensive by the target consumer group (LSM 1-10) both in rural and urban setting.

Respondents indicate a high purchase intent after testing the product but quickly change their mind after learning of the retail price

– Positive communication around price vs. benefits should be explored


Motivations to use of preferred product

The key motivation to using TM41 would be affordability; respondents already like the product and affordability is the main barrier to usage.

Our recommendation would be to explore:– Financing – Reduced retail costs

Other motivations to product use include charging of radio, 2 lamps and the bright light. Areas to be explored are:

– Charging other electronic appliances like mobile phones and TVs


Currency Conversion Rate

Tanzania

US$ 1 = 1,327 TZS

*Approximate, as of May 2009


LIGHTING DEVICES TEST RESULTS

Documents

lighting needs

reliable lighting

wherelighting africa

grid lighting products

global lighting industry

safe lighting available

market spoilagebusiness

robust market