European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

Analysis of Distribution Channels in the Pharmaceutical Industry

in Ghana: the Case of Aryton Drugs Ltd. in the Greater and
Eastern Regions.
Yaw Brew1, Samuel Ayittah Kwabena2, and Samuel Addae-Boateng3
Dr. S (University of Electronic Science and Technology, PRC) and
Department of Marketing, Koforidua Polytechnic, Eastern Region, Ghana
*E-mail of the corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract
The study attempted to examine the level of satisfaction among retailers who buy from distributors, to find out
the reasons manufacturers in the pharmaceutical industry are not fully outsourcing their distribution function and
also to identify the challenges faced by firms in distributing their products to retailers and distributors. The study
adopted a purposive and accidental non-probability sampling technique. The study surveyed retailers and
distributors in Greater Accra region and Koforidua in the Eastern region and management staff of Aryton Ltd.
Structured questionnaires and interviews were used. Personal interviews between 1 to 5 minutes for word-of-
mouth testimonies were conducted. Close-ended and open-ended questionnaires were administered to 90
retailers and distributors. The study revealed that most retailers are very satisfied with the level of service quality
they receive from distributors. Few distributors wish to solely distribute for local manufacturers. Generally the
study revealed that both distributors and manufacturers have challenges, some of which are limited financial
resources, lack of collateral, high payment default, lack of logistics, and keen competition.
Key words: Distribution, Distribution Channels, Channel strategy Pharmaceutical Industry.

1.1 Introduction
Distribution is the only element in the marketing mix that makes the product of the manufacturer available to the
customers. No matter how excellent the other elements of the marketing mix are, a firm cannot succeed in
today’s competitive world without good distribution channel strategy; i.e. the product of the manufacturer should
be at the right place at the right time.
In Ghana, most manufacturers in the pharmaceutical sector combine both direct and indirect distribution
channels in sending out their products to customers. Despite the strategic importance of distribution to producers,
many firms approach distribution anyhow without specific strategies, they just follow what others in the industry
are doing instead of doing what will give them a competitive advantage.
1.2 Research Problem
Local manufacturers or producers in the pharmaceutical industry in Ghana are faced with fierce competition on
pricing from the importation of products, most especially from India and China. This situation is also affected by
the low price quotations that the National Health Insurance Authority expects producers (suppliers) to charge. It
is therefore necessary for local manufacturers to manage efficiently the various resources available to them,
especially their distribution activities, since it is very costly to attract and maintain an effective sales force. The
situation where manufacturers end up competing with their own distributors and channel members in distributing
their products to the retailers (chemical sellers and pharmacy shops) has not received much attention. This
research was thus conducted to address this problem.
1.3 Research Objectives
This research was set to achieve the following objectives:
• To find out the level of satisfaction among retailers who buy from distributors and wholesalers.
• To find out the reason(s) manufacturers are not fully outsourcing the distribution of their Over-the-
Counter medicines to retailers.
• To ascertain the effectiveness and efficiency of firms distributing their products to both the wholesalers
and retailers.
• To identify the challenges faced by firms in distributing their products to both the wholesalers and
retailers.
1.4 Research Questions
The study sought to address the following research questions:
• What is the level of retailer satisfaction in dealing or buying from distributors?
• Why do manufacturers compete with their own wholesalers in distributing or supplying products to
retailers?

67
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

• Is it time for manufacturing firms to allow distributors and wholesalers to solely distribute their Over-
the-Counter medicines and focus more on their prescription medicines?
• What are some of the major challenges manufacturing firms face when they distribute their own
products?
1.5 Justification and Significance of the Study
According to Levy & Weitz (1998), because of lack of time and other resources customers do one-stop shopping,
i.e. making multiple purchases in one location. Retailers of pharmaceutical products also prefer a one-stop
shopping experience that they can get all the varieties of products that they want, or better still, get them within
one location. If retailers want one–stop shopping experience and pharmaceutical firms are distributing only their
firm’s product(s), compared with distributors who distribute varieties of products from different manufacturers,
then it is important to look into the research topic.
1. The study contributes to the existing knowledge on distribution channels in the pharmaceutical industry
in Ghana and helps provide understanding to individuals or corporate organisations who want to
venture into wholesaling and distribution of pharmaceutical products in Ghana.
2. It will help managements of pharmaceutical firms in understanding the levels of satisfaction among
retailers who buy from distributors and wholesalers in order to improve upon their distribution channel
strategies.
3. The study will also serve as a reference to other researchers who want to do further research on the
topic.

2.0 Literature Review

Marketing channels decisions are among the most important decisions that management faces. A company’s
channel decisions are linked with every other marketing decision. The company’s pricing depends on whether it
uses mass merchandisers or high-quality specialty stores. The firm’s sales force and advertising decisions depend
on how much persuasion, training and innovation the dealers or resellers need. Whether a company develops or
acquires certain new products may depend on how well those products fit the abilities of its channel members.
Distribution channel decisions often involve long-term commitments to other firms. Companies can easily
change their advertising, pricing or promotional programmes; they can scrap old products and introduce new
ones as market tastes demand. But when they set up distribution channels through contacts with franchises,
independent dealers or large retailers, they cannot readily replace these channels with company owned stores if
conditions change. Therefore management must design its channels carefully, with an eye on tomorrow’s likely
selling environment as well as today’s.
2.1 The Nature of Distribution
According to Kotler et al. (2002) distribution is a set of interdependent organisations involved in the process of
making a product or service available for use or consumption by the consumer or business user. Most producers
use third parties or intermediaries to bring their products to the market. The use of intermediaries results from
their greater efficiency in making goods available to target markets. Pride and Ferrell (2006) are of the view that,
distribution is the efficient movement of finished products from the production line to the customer; in some
cases it includes movement of raw materials from the source of supply to the beginning of the production line.
Kotler (1999) stated that a distribution system is a key external resource such that it represents, as well, a
commitment to a set of policies and practices that constitute the basic fabric on which is woven an existence set
of long-term relationships.
Jeffkins (1993) puts it this way: distribution is every activity involved in the transfer of goods and services from
the producer or supplier to the final user or consumer, and involved in this transfer are warehousing, delivery,
depots, distribution, selling. In the opinion of Rushton, Oxley and Croucher (2004), distribution is a term used
to describe the methods and means by which a product or group of products is physically transferred or
distributed from their point of production to the point at which they are made available to the final consumer.
Jobber (2001) describes physical distribution as the focus of efficient movement of goods from the producer to
intermediaries and the consumer. It is a set of activities concerned with the physical flow of material components
and finished goods from a producer to channel intermediaries and consumer. Boachie-Mensah (2009) added that
distribution as the process of making goods and services available in the right quantities and locations to those
who want to buy them. Distribution can involve a single step or several steps.
From the above definitions, one can deduce that distribution has to do with a producer or a company making sure
that its offerings are available to and can be acquired and/or consumed by the consumers in an effective and
efficient manner. It is a diverse and dynamic function that has to be flexible and has to change according to the
various constraints and demands imposed upon it and with respect to the environment in which it works.
2.2 Distribution Channel Functions

68
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

While Kotler and Armstrong (1999), established that the main function of a distribution channel is to provide a
link between production and consumption. Kurtz and Boone (2006), break this down into four key functions of
distribution as:
(a) They facilitate the exchange process by reducing the number of marketplace contacts necessary to make a
sale.
(b) Distributors adjust for discrepancies in the market’s assortment of goods and services via a process known
as sorting.
(c) They standardise exchange transaction by setting expectations for products, and it involves the transfer
process itself. Channel members tend to standardize payment terms, delivery schedules, prices, and purchase
lots among other conditions.
(d) They help to facilitate searches by both buyers and sellers. Channels bring buyers and sellers together to
complete the exchange process.
Kotler et al. (2002) argues that members of the marketing channels perform many key functions including.
• Information: Gathering and distributing marketing research intelligence information about actors and forces in
the marketing environment needed for planning and facilitating exchange.
• Promotion: developing and spreading persuasive communications about an offer.
• Contact: finding and communicating with prospective buyers.
• Marketing: shipping and fitting the offer to the buyer’s needs, including such activities as manufacturing,
grading, assembling and packaging.
• Negotiation: reaching an agreement on pricing and other terms of the offer, so that ownership or possession
can be transferred.
Jobber (2004), asserts that the most basic question to ask when deciding on channels is whether to sell directly to
the ultimate customer or to use channel intermediaries such as retailers and/or wholesalers. The functions of
channel intermediaries are:
Reconciling the needs of producers or consumers, improving efficiency, improving accessibility, providing
specialist services. From the above discussions it is clear that the channel intermediaries perform certain key
functions that help the manufacturer to lower its cost and also be more effective in focusing on its core
competencies.
2.3 Types of Distribution Channels
Kotler et al. (1996), state that the number of intermediary levels indicates the length of a channel. They indicate
two types of distribution. The first is the direct marketing channel. It has no intermediary level. It is made up of a
manufacturer selling directly to consumers. This channel gives the greatest degree of control but can be
uneconomical where there are a large number of customers for the producer.
The second is indirect marketing channel with intermediaries. Baker (1991), pointed out that distribution is
concentrated on major variations in structure and that brings about certain basic alternatives open to
manufacturers of both industrial and consumer goods. Boone and Kurtz (2004) argue that the first step in
selecting a marketing channel is determining which type of channel will best meet both the seller’s objectives
and the distribution needs of customers. Figure 1.0 depicts the major channels available to marketers of
consumer goods and services.
Figure 1.0: Alternative marketing channels
Consumer goods

Producer Consumer

Retailer Consumer
Producer

Producer Wholesale Retailer Consumer

Source: Adapted from Boone & Kurtz (2004), Contemporary Marketing, 11th Ed.

Agents Wholesale Retailer Consumers

69
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

2.4 Channel Strategy

Blythe (2006), explains that channel strategy is about choosing the right distributors. This will involve selecting
the most effective distributors, the appropriate level of intensity and the degree of channel integration. Karen
(2000) identifies three strategies which he calls the three types of marketing coverage. These are:
a) Intensive distribution: this is when a manufacturer uses all available outlets for distributing a product. The
reason for this type of distribution is that these goods must be available where and when consumers want
them.
b) Exclusive distribution: that is when a limited number of distribution channels are accorded the exclusive right
to distribute a manufacturer’s product in a defined territory. It is characterised by relating to few customers,
close retailer/customer relationship, specialty products, low frequency rate of purchase, high involvement
purchase and high price.
c) Selective distribution: this is when a manufacturer uses only some available outlets in an area to distribute a
product. Selective distribution is appropriate for shopping products (products or items for which buyers are
willing to expend considerable effort in planning and making purchases). Examples are durable goods such as
television and stereos.
2.5 Channel Integration
Perreault Jr. and McCarthy (2003), revealed that middle specialists can help make a channel more efficient. But
there may be problems getting the different firms in a channel to work together well. They argue that how well
they work together depends on the type of relationship they have. Ideally, all of the members of a channel system
should have a shared product-market commitment, with all members focusing on the same target market at the
end of the channel and sharing various marketing functions in appropriate ways. Kotler et al. (2002), observe
that historically distribution channels have been loose collection of independent companies, each showing little
concern for overall channel performance. A conventional distribution channel consists of one or more
independent producers, wholesalers, retailers. Each is a separate business seeking to maximise its own profits,
even at the expense of profits for the system as a whole. No channel has much control over the other members
and no formal means exist for assigning roles and resolving channel conflicts. One of the biggest recent channel
developments has been the vertical marketing channel. A vertical marketing system (VMS) consists of producers,
wholesalers and retailers acting as a uniform system. According to Stokes (2002), the vertical marketing system
(VMS) is achieved by combinations of coercion and co-operation. One channel member owns the others, has
contracts with them, or wields so much power that they all cooperate. The VMS can be dominated by the
producer, wholesaler or retailer. Kotler et al. (2002), continue to argue that there are three main types of the
vertical marketing systems, which are the Corporate VMS, Contractual VMS and Administered VMS.
2.6 Channel Management
Bearden et al. (2004), pointed out that the management of marketing channels requires decision making and
action in six areas. The first is to formulate marketing objectives and strategy. Only then can managers develop
marketing-channel strategies and objectives. Various channel alternatives are then evaluated to determine
capabilities, costs, compatibility with other marketing variables, and their availability to the firm. The next is for
the firm to establish its channel structure and implement the channel strategy and finally the firm must constantly
evaluate channel performance. David Jobber (2004) argues that once the key channel strategy decisions have
been made, effective implementation is required. Specifically, a number of channel management issues must be
addressed. These are the selection, motivation, training and evaluation of channel members and managing
conflict between producers and channel members.
Lamb et al. (2006), define channel conflict as a clash of goals and methods among the members of a distribution
channel. In a broad context, conflict may not be bad. When producers and channel members are independent,
conflicts inevitably occur from time to time. The intensity of conflict can range from occasional, minor
disagreements that are quickly forgotten, to major disputes that fuel continuous bitter relationship. The major
sources of channel conflict are differences in goals, differences in views on the desired product lines carried by
channel members, multiple distribution channels, and inadequacies in performance (Jobber, 2004).

3.0 Scope and Methodology

The study was restricted to analysing the distribution channel strategies of firms in the pharmaceutical industry,
using Aryton Drugs Ltd as a case study. It covered distributors, pharmacy shops and chemical sellers’ shops in
the Greater Accra Region and New-Juabeng Municipality in the Eastern Region of Ghana. Greater Accra was
divided into Accra East, Accra West, Ashaiman and Tema, and Accra Central (Okaishie Market).
Sample Size and Sampling Procedure
The study used a sample size of ninety (90) respondents. The questionnaires were administered in the following
manner: a total of forty (50) went to Retailers (i.e. Chemical shops & pharmacy shops) in the greater Accra
region. The fifty questionnaires were apportioned in this manner: fifteen (15) questionnaires for Accra East,

70
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

fifteen (15) questionnaires for Accra West, ten (10) questionnaires for Ashaiman, and ten (10) questionnaires for
Tema. A total of twenty (20) questionnaires were administered to distributors/wholesalers in the Greater Accra
region in the following manner: ten (10) questionnaires for Accra Central, four questionnaires (4) for Accra East,
four (4) questionnaires for Accra West and two (2) questionnaires for Ashaiman and Tema, a total of four (4)
distributors and ten (10) retailers for the New Juabeng Municipality. And a total of six (6) management staff of
Aryton Drugs Ltd. Purposive and accidental non-probability sampling techniques were used to administer the
questionnaires. Confidentiality was assured to encourage expression of candid opinions.
Data Gathering and Research Instruments
Six research assistants together with the researcher administered and retrieved the questionnaires. Structured
interviews and questionnaires were used. Some personal interviews between 1 to 5 minutes for word-of-mouth
testimonies were conducted. Close-ended and open-ended questions were used to enable respondents give
specific responses to certain questions and where necessary, express personal opinions. The data gathered were
edited and coded. SPSS was used to analyse and present information in simple tabulations, cross-tabulation,
percentages, bar charts and pie charts.
3.1 Limitations
Time and financial constraints did not allow for larger sample size and limited the scope of the research to only
the Greater Accra and New-Juabeng Municipalities with a sample size of 90 distributors and retailers. Also, the
non-probability sampling techniques used denied some elements in the population the chance of being selected
for the study.

4.0 Data Presentation and Analysis

4.1 Questionnaire Administration
Forty-five (45) questionnaires representing 75% out of the 60 questionnaires given to retailers were retrieved.
Twenty (20) questionnaires representing 83.33% out of the twenty-four (24) given to distributors were retrieved
and five (5) questionnaires representing 83.33% out of six (6) questionnaires given to management staff were
retrieved. See Table 1
4.2 Responses from Retailers
Respondents by Shop
68.9% of the respondents were chemical shops and 31.1% were pharmacy shops. This indicates chemical shops
dominance in the retailing of drugs or medicines. See Table 2
Reasons Retailers Buy From Distributors
17 (37.8%) of the respondents buy from distributors as a result of low prices, 16 (35.6%) respondents buy as a
result of availability of different products from different manufacturers, 7 (15.6%) buy as a result of short
delivery time and 5% buy as a result of knowledgeable salesmen.
This suggests that most respondents (73.3%) buy from distributors and not manufacturers because of availability
of variety of products from different manufacturers and perceived low prices. The reason assigned to the low
price is that they find it cheaper and convenient to buy their entire products from a distributor than from different
manufacturers. See Table 3
Adequacy of Distributors Product Lines
15 (33.3%) respondents strongly agree that distributors carry enough variety of products, 16 (35.6%) agree that
distributors carry enough variety of products, 10 (22.2%) were not sure, 3 (6.7%) disagree and 1 (2.2%) strongly
disagrees. This implies that 68.9% of them agree that the variety of drugs sold by distributors is enough, while
22.2% of respondents are not sure and 8.9% disagree. See Table 4
Distributors’ Response Time
16 (35.6%) respondents strongly agree that distributors respond to retailers’ orders on time, 16 (35.6%) agree
that distributors respond to retailers’ orders on time, 3 (6.7%) disagree and one 1 (2.2%) strongly disagrees and 9
(20%) of them were not sure. This implies that 71.1% of them agree that the distributors respond to retailers’
orders on time, while 20% are not sure and 8.9% disagree. See Table 5
The State of Distributors’ Vehicles
15 (33.3%) respondents strongly agree that the vehicles used by distributors are hygienic, 14 (31.1%) agree that
the vehicles used by distributors are hygienic, 4 (8.9%) disagree, 2 (4.4%) strongly disagree and 10 (22.2%)
were not sure. This implies that 64.4% of them agree that the vehicles used by distributors are hygienic enough,
while 22.2% are not sure and 8.9% disagree. See Table 6
Appropriateness of Distributors Credit Terms
69.8% of respondents agree that the credit terms of distributors is appropriate, 18.6% are not sure and 11.6%
disagree. 4.4% did not answer. See Table 7
Distributors Salesmen Ratings on Customer Service Quality
Out of the responses, 0.55% answered very poor, 4.44% answered poor, 32.22% answered satisfactory, 30.56%

71
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

answered good, 20.56% answered very good, and 11.67% did not answer. This implies that performance on
customer service delivery is good. See Table 8
Price Levels of Distributors
37 (86%) respondents agree that distributors’ prices are reasonably moderate whiles 6 (14%) disagree that
distributors’ prices are reasonably moderate, 2 (4.4%) did not answer . The reason for this answer was that
distributors’ prices are almost the same as that of manufacturers. See Table 9
Overall Service Quality
33 (80.5%) of the respondents perceived the overall service quality by distributors as more than satisfactory and
8 (19.5%) perceived the overall service quality by distributors as satisfactory, 4 (8.9%) did not answer. None of
them perceived the overall service quality by distributors as poor or very poor. This shows that from the
perception of retailers, distributors provide good quality services to them. See Table 10
4.3 Responses from Distributors
The Number of Local Manufacturers Distributors Deal With
8 (40%) of them sell products of 6 to 10 local manufacturers, while 5 (25%) sell products of less than 5 local
manufacturers, and 7 (35%) sell product of 11 to 15 local manufacturers. None of them sell products of more
than 16 local producers. See Table 11
The Numbers of Lines Distributors Carry For Local Manufacturers
Respondents were asked if they carry all the products produced by the local producers that they buy from and 16
(80%) responded “no” whiles 4 (20%) responded “yes”. When they were asked why, all the respondents who
answered “no” said they sell only the fast moving products and the respondents who answered “yes” explained
that though they sell all products from some local manufacturers, but their focus is on fast moving products
(medicines). This shows that wholesalers and manufacturers have different objectives and purposes. See Table
12
Existence of Competition between Local Producers and Distributors
When distributors were asked whether they do compete with producers whose products they sell to the retailers,
19 respondents representing 95% out of 20 respondents said “yes” whiles a respondent answered “no”. They
further explained that local producers sell to the same shops at the same price and sometimes cheaper. See Table
13
Distributors Interest in Sole Distribution
14 respondents representing 70% do not wish to be sole distributors for any local producer but 6 representing
30% wish to be sole distributors. See Table 14
Capabilities of Distributors with regards to their Employees, Distribution Vans and Finance
Respondents were asked whether they have the right number of workers, distribution vans and also financial
resources to be sole distributors. Out of the responses only 8.33% of the respondents strongly agree, 20% agree,
30% were not sure, and 41.67% disagree. This indicates that 28.33% have these three basic resources and
41.67% are certain they don’t have it. 30% of them are not sure of their status. See Table 15
Local Manufacturers Response Time
16 (84.21%) respondents responded in the affirmative that local manufacturers respond to their request (orders)
on time, while 3 (15.79%) responded “no” to the question while 1 (5%) did not respond. When they were further
asked to explain their answers, 14 (87.5%) out of the 16 who answered “yes” explained that most producers
respond promptly whiles 2 representing 12.5 % explained that few of them respond promptly. See Table 16
Price Levels of Local Producers
75% of the respondents agree that the prices of manufacturers are moderate and 25% see the prices as expensive.
When they were asked to further explain their answers, 60% out of those who said the prices are moderate did
not answer, the remaining 40% explained that customers are able to buy. The 25% who said prices are not
moderate explained that the discount they are given is too low and the producers sell at same price and in some
cases lower than the price the retailers sell. See Table 17
Credit Payment Period
17 of the respondents representing eighty-five percent (85%) said that manufacturers give them credit period
between 30-40 days. 1 (5%) also said that they are given credit period between 41-50 days. 2 (10%) are given
credit period between 51-60 days. None of them indicated that they are given below 30 days or above 60 days.
See Table 18
Local Manufacturers’ Response to Distributors’ Demands
16 (88.89%) respondents said producers respond to their demands on time and 2 (11.11%) said producers are not
actively working to satisfy them. Out of the 16 who answered “yes” to the question, 4 of them explained that
producers are able to supply their orders on time. Another 4 also explained that they see distributors actively
working to satisfy their demands because their products are available. 8 said that local producers run adverts for
the products retailers sell. See Table 19

72
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

Challenges Facing Distributors in the Industry

When distributors were asked to comment on the challenges facing them in the industry, they sited lack of
financial support, low discount offered by manufacturers, keen competition, non-payment of debt by retailers,
and regulatory issues by the Pharmacy Council.
4.4 Responses from Management of Aryton Drugs Ltd.
Existence of Competition between Producers and Distributors
All the respondents confirmed that Aryton Drugs Limited compete with distributors in selling their products to
retailers within the same market. See Table 20
Cost of the Various Methods of Distribution
All the respondents answered that it is expensive for them to distribute their own products to retailers. They
further explained that distributing their own products is expensive due to sales van acquisition costs, vehicle
running costs and cost of engaging and motivating more sales staff. See Table 21
Response Time
40% of the respondents answered “yes” and 60% answered “no” when they were asked whether their companies
supply wholesalers’ orders on time. The respondents who answered “no” explained that sometimes they do not
because the wholesalers come under their sales reps and sometimes the sales reps delay deliveries when that
delivery is off the route which they are visiting for the particular week. See Table 22
Credit Policy and Credit Payment Period
All the respondents’ confirmed the existence of a credit policy. They further explained that they give 30 days’
credit period from the date of invoice. See Table 23
Distributors’ Commitment
All the respondents answered that distributors are not committed. They explained further that distributors only
sell the fast moving products. See Table 24
Capabilities of distributors as Sole Distributors
40% agreed that wholesalers have resources in respect of number of employees, distribution vans and finance,
whiles 60% disagree that wholesalers have those resources. See Table 25
Why No Sole Distribution But Competition
The five managers interviewed gave these reasons as to why their company has not entrusted the distribution of
their products (drugs) in the hands of distributors: high risk of default in payment, limited financial resources,
capacity to reach remote markets, brand imitation which could kill the original brand, and lack of required
collateral as a guarantee for sole distribution arrangements.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The survey revealed some critical issues for achieving the ultimate objectives of the study.
The Level of Satisfaction of Retailers.
Almost all the retailers who responded to the questions were satisfied with the overall level of quality service
they receive from the distributors they buy from. The study revealed that out of the forty-one (41) respondents,
thirty-three (33) of them, representing 80.5% perceived the overall service quality by distributors as more than
satisfactory and eight (8) representing 19.5% perceived the overall service quality by distributors as satisfactory.
None of them perceived the overall service quality by distributors as poor or very poor. This shows that from the
perception of retailers, distributors provide quality services to them.
In addition, the survey revealed that most of the retailers agree that distributors supply on time. 71.1% agree that
the distributors respond to retailers’ orders on time, while 22.2% are not sure and 8.9% disagree.
It was interesting to find out that most retailers buy from distributors because they perceive that their prices are
low. Seventeen (17) respondents, representing 37.8% buy as a result of low prices, 16 representing 35.6% buy as
a result of availability of different products of different manufacturers, and this implies that most respondents
(73.3%) buy from distributors and not manufacturers because of perceived low price and availability of variety
of products from different manufacturers. The reason assigned to the low price is that they find it cheaper and
convenient to buy their entire products from a distributor than from different manufacturers. Similarly the study
also revealed most of the sampled retailers are very satisfied with the credit period offered them by distributors.
69.8% agree that the credit terms of distributors is appropriate, whiles 18.6% are not sure and 11.6% of the
respondents disagree.
The Ability of Distributors to Solely Distribute
The study revealed that majority of the respondents does not wish to be sole distributors for any producer.
Fourteen (14) respondents representing 70 % do not wish to be sole distributors for any local producer but six (6)
representing 30% wish to be sole distributors. Some of the reasons were that they do not have the human,
financial and other resources to enable them solely distribute. Out of the 60 respondents, only 28.33% believe
they have adequate number of employees, vehicles and financial resources to be able to be sole distributors and

73
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

41.67% are certain they do not have adequate number of employees, vehicles and financial resources to be able
to be sole distributors, whiles 30% are not sure of their status.
From the point of view of manufacturers they have not outsourced the distribution part of their work because of
high risk of default by distributors, limited financial resources, capacity to reach remote markets, brand imitation
which are able to kill the original brand and lack of required collateral as a guarantee for sole distribution
arrangements.
The Challenges Faced By Manufacturers
The study revealed that it is more expensive for producers to distribute their own products than to use
distributors. All the respondents (100%) answered that it is more expensive for the producer company to
distribute its own products to the retailer. They further explained that distributing their own products is
expensive due to sales van acquisition costs, vehicle running costs and cost of engaging more sales staff. In light
of the above facts the study further revealed that producers find it expedient distributing themselves because of
perceived low capacity among most of the distributors.
From the conclusions drawn the following interventions are recommended:
Sole distribution in smaller geographic area
Producers should, as a start, enter into an agreement with selected distributors and allow them to solely distribute
their products in smaller territories to observe their performances. Performances will go up as distributors absorb
the sales that should have gone to producers and this will be a major boost to distributors in acquiring more
logistics for their business. As performances increase, producers could pursue vertical marketing integration by
selecting the distributor with much capacity to be the sole distributor in a particular region.
Effective Communications
There should be effective communications with selected distributors to know much about their operations and
the type and level of training and other support that may be necessary in achieving the goal of effective and
efficient distribution. Manufacturers should also increase advertisement to encourage product awareness and
interest among their customers.
Collateral
Producers should encourage prospective sole distributors to insure their businesses to reduce the risk of doing
business with them. The business contract should frown on brand imitations and distributor defaults by awarding
strict and harsh sanctions to defaulter. This will rather discourage the behaviour of brand imitation because brand
imitation can equally take place even when they are not sole distributors.

References
Baker, M. J. (1991), Sources of Information on Dual Distribution, 5th Ed. International Thompson Business
Press, UK
Bearden, O. W., Ingram, N. T., and LaForge, W. R., (2004), Marketing; Principles and Perspectives, 4th Ed,
McGraw-Hill Companies, New York.
Blythe, J. (2006), Principles And Practice Of Marketing, Thomson Learning, London.
Boachie-Mensah, O. F. (2009), Essentials of Marketing, Excellent Publishing and Printing, Ghana
Boone, E. L. and Kurtz, L. D. (2004), Contemporary of Marketing, 11th Ed, South-Western, Thomson
Corporation.
Etzel, J. M., Walker, J. B., and Stanton, J. W., (2001), Marketing, 12th Ed, McGraw-Hill Companies, New York.
Jefkins, F. (1993), A First Course In Marketing, 2nd Ed, DP Publications Limited, Aldine Place, London W12
8AW, UK.
Jobber, D. (2001), Principles and Practice of Marketing, 3rd Ed, McGraw-Hill Education, Companies, New
York.
Jobber, D. (2004), Principles and Practice of Marketing, 4th Ed, McGraw-Hill Education, (UK) Limited
Kotler, P. (1999), Information on Marketing Management, 8th Ed., Prentice Hall Inc., U.S.A.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, A. (1999), Principles of Marketing, 8th Ed., Prentice Hall Inc., U. S. A.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., and Wong, V., (1996), Principles of Marketing, 1st European Ed.,
Prentice Hall Inc., U. S. A.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., and Wong, V., (2002), Principles of Marketing, 3rd European Ed.,
Pearson Education Limited, England.
Kurtz, L. D. and Boone, E. L. (2006), Principles of Marketing, 12th Ed, South-Western, Thomson Corporation.
Lamb, W. C., Hair, F. J., and McDaniel, C., (2006), Marketing, 8th, South-Western, Thomson Corporation.
Levy, M. and Weitz, A. B. (1998), Retailing Management, 3rd Ed, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue
Of The Americas, New York, NY, 10020.
McDaniel, C., Lamb, W. C., and Hair, F. J., (2006), Introduction to Marketing, 8th Ed, South-Western, Thomson
Corporation.

74
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

Palmer, A. (2000), Principles of Marketing, Oxford University Press Inc., New York.
Perreault, Jr. D. W. and McCarthy, J. E., (2003), Essentials of Marketing; A Global –Managerial Approach, 9th,
Ed, McGraw-Hill Companies, New York.
Perreault, Jr. D. W., and McCarthy, J. E., (2002), Basic Marketing; A Global –Managerial Approach, 14th, Ed,
McGraw-Hill Companies, New York.
Pride, M. W. and Ferrel, C. O. (2006), Marketing; Library Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, New
York.
Rushton, A., Oxley, J., and Croucher, P., (2004), Handbook of Logistic and Distribution Management, 2nd Ed.,
Bell and Bain Ltd, Great Britain.
Stokes, D. (2002), Marketing, (3rd Ed), Thomson Learning, London.
http://www.ideatodays.com/business/the-nature-of-distribution-channels.html. Accessed on 20th February, 2011.
http://www.ayrtondrugs.com/histoty.html. Accessed on 25th June, 2011.

APPENDIX
Profile of Respondents
Table 1: Questionnaire Administration
Questionnaire Total Retailers Distributors Management
Administration

Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %

Retrieved 70 77.78 45 75 20 83.33 5 83.33

Not retrieved 20 22.22 15 25 4 16.67 1 16.67
Total 90 100 60 100 24 100 6 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Table 2: Respondents by Shop

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Chemical shop 31 68.9 68.9 68.9
Pharmacy shop 14 31.1 31.1 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 3: Reasons Retailers Buy from Distributors

Responses Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Availability of different product of
16 35.6 35.6 35.6
different manufacturers
Low prices 17 37.8 37.8 73.3
Short delivery time 7 15.6 15.6 88.9
Knowledgeable salesman 5 11.1 11.1 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011

75
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

Table 4: Adequacy of Distributors Product Lines

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 15 33.3 33.3 33.3
Agree 16 35.6 35.6 68.9
Not sure 10 22.2 22.2 91.1
Strongly disagree 1 2.2 2.2 93.3
Disagree 3 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Table 5: Distributors’ Response Time
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 16 35.6 35.6 35.6
Agree 16 35.6 35.6 71.1
Not sure 9 20.0 20.0 91.1
Strongly disagree 1 2.2 2.2 93.3
Disagree 3 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 6: The State of Distributors’ Vehicles

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Strongly agree 15 33.3 33.3 33.3
Agree 14 31.1 31.1 64.4
Not sure 10 22.2 22.2 86.7
Strongly disagree 2 4.4 4.4 91.1
Disagree 4 8.9 8.9 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 7: Appropriateness of Distributors Credit Terms

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 18 40.0 41.9 41.9
Agree 12 26.7 27.9 69.8
Not sure 8 17.8 18.6 88.4
Strongly disagree 1 2.2 2.3 90.7
Disagree 4 8.9 9.3 100.0
Total 43 95.6 100.0
Non respondents 2 4.4
Total 45 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011

76
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

Table 8: Distributors Salesmen Ratings on Customer Service Quality Determinants

Responses Total no. of Sense of
responses Valid Cum Friendliness Care Courtesy urgency
Freq % % %
Very poor 1 0.55 0.63 0.63 1 0 0 0
Poor 8 4.44 5.03 5.66 3 2 2 1
Satisfactory 58 32.22 36.48 42.14 13 17 11 17
Good 55 30.56 34.59 76.73 14 12 15 14
Very good 37 20.56 23.27 100 12 9 12 4
Total 159 88.33 100 43 40 40 36
Non response 21 11.67 2 5 5 9
Total 180 100 45 45 45 45
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 9: Price Levels of Distributors

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Yes
37 82.2 86.0 86.0

No
6 13.3 14.0 100.0

Total
43 95.6 100.0

Non respondents 2 4.4

Total 45 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 10: Overall Service Quality

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Satisfactory 8 17.8 19.5 19.5
Good 16 35.6 39.0 58.5
Very good 17 37.8 41.5 100.0
Total 41 91.1 100.0
Non respondents 4 8.9
Total 45 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 11: The Number of Local Manufacturers’ Distributors Deals With

Frequency Percentage (%) Cumulative (%)
Less than 5 5 25 25
6-10 8 40 65
11-15 7 35 100
16-20 0 0
More than 20 0 0
Total 20 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

77
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

Table 12: The Numbers of Lines Distributors Carry For Manufacturers

Responses Frequency Percentage (%)
Yes 4 20
No 16 80
Total 20 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 13: Existence of Competition between Producers and Distributors

Responses Frequency Percentage (%)
Yes 19 95
No 1 5
Total 20 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 14: Distributors Interest in Sole Distribution

Responses Frequency Percentage (%)
Yes 6 30
No 14 70
Total 20 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 15: The Capabilities of Distributors With Regards to their Employees, Distribution Vans and
Finance
Responses Frequency Percentage Resources
(%)
No. of Employees No. of Distribution Vans Finance

Strongly 5 8.33 2 1 2
Agree
Agree 12 20 5 4 3
Not sure 18 30 4 5 9
Disagree 25 41.67 9 10 6
Strongly 0 0 0 0 0
disagree
Total 60 100 20 20 20
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 16: Do Manufacturers Supply On Time?

Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Valid (%)
Yes 16 80 84.21
No 3 15 15.79
No response 1 5 -
Total 20 100 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 17: Price Levels of Producers

Responses Frequency Percentage (%)
Yes 15 75
No 5 25
Total 20 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

78
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

Table 18: Credit Payment Period

Responses (Days) Frequency Percentage (%)
Below 30 0 0
30-40 17 85
41-50 1 5
51-60 2 10
Above 60 0 0
Total 20 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 19: Producers Response to Distributors Demand

Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Valid percentage (%)
Yes 16 80 88.89
No 2 10 11.11
No response 2 10 -
Total 20 100 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 20: Do producers compete with distributors?

Responses Frequency Percentages (%)
Yes 5 100
No 0 0
Total 5 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 21: Cost of the Various Methods of Distribution

Responses Frequency Percentages (%)
By distributors 0 0
By producer 5 100
Total 5 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 22: Do Producers Supply on Time?

Responses Frequency Percentages (%)
Yes 2 40
No 3 60
Total 5 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 23: Existence of a Credit Policy and Credit Period

Responses Frequency Percentages (%)
Yes 5 100
No 0 0
Total 5 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Table 24: Commitment Level of Distributor

Responses Frequency Percentages (%)
Yes 0 0
No 5 100
Total 5 100
Source: Field Survey, 2011

79
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

Table 25: The Capabilities of Distributors in terms of the Number of Employees, Number of Distribution
Vans and Finance
Responses Frequency Percentage Resources
(%)
No. of Employees No. of Distribution Vans Finance

Strongly 0 0 0 0 0
Agree
Agree 6 40 2 2 2
Not sure 9 60 3 3 3
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly 0 0 0 0 0
disagree
Total 15 10 5 5 5
Source: Field Survey, 2011

Figure 1: A Bar Chart showing the Adequacy of Distributors Product Lines

Source: Field Survey, 2011

80
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.5, No.20, 2013

Fig 2: A Bar Chart Showing the State of Distributors’ Vehicles

Source: Field Survey, 2011

Figure 3: A Pie Chart Showing the Overall Service Quality

Source: Field Survey, 2011

81
This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science,
Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access
Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is
Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTE’s homepage:
http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS

The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and
collaborating with academic institutions around the world. There’s no deadline for
submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission
instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ The IISTE
editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified submissions in a
fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the
world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from
gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the journals is also available
upon request of readers and authors.

MORE RESOURCES

Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/

Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open

Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar