This is a case study of a marketing innovation by a leading fertilizer manufacturing company through a project with self-help groups (SHGs). The project was initiated by the company in 2003 in Andhra Pradesh. Then, the farm input companies were faced with the challenge of meeting the farmers' requirements on a timely basis. This was largely because of the dominance of distributors and dealers across the supply network. The wholesaler's loyalties to the companies were limited and opportunistic, and lay with products that gave them more margins and not with what were ideal for farming. The farmers were, as a consequence, also plagued by woes such as non availability of fertilizers during peak cropping seasons, high costs of transportation of fertilizers from the nearest town to remote villages, high interest rates charged by the channel members, opportunistic pricing practiced by distributors, and influx of substandard products. The company, in order to limit the role of the wholesalers and to supply fertilizers directly to the farmers, engaged the self-help group members as direct dealers, simultaneously creating livelihood opportunities for these members. The project engaged as many as 750 groups in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The objective of this research was to draw a case of the project as an example for other corporations to adapt in their respective strategies for business development in rural areas and to alter their mechanisms of distribution and their forms of service for the end consumers.

1. Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivruddhi Society (APMAS). (2006). Self help groups in India: A study of the lights and shades. EDA Rural Systems and Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivruddhi Society. Retrieved from <a href=http://www.edarural.com/documents/SHG-Study/Executive-Summary.pdf target="_blank">http://www.edarural.com/documents/SHG-Study/Executive-Summary.pdf</a>
2. Banerjee, T. (2009). Economic impact of self-help groups : A case study. Journal of Rural Development, 28 (4), 451 - 467.
3. Bosch, J. (2009). From software product lines to software ecosystems. Accepted for the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2009), August 24-28, 2009, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from <a href=http://www.janbosch.com/Jan%20Bosch/Composition_files/SPLC09-SoftwareEcosystems-Accepted.pdf target="_blank">http://www.janbosch.com/Jan%20Bosch/Composition_files/SPLC09-SoftwareEcosystems-Accepted.pdf</a>
4. Chandrasekaran, N. (2010). Supply chain management (pp. 170 - 178). New Delhi : Oxford University Press of India.
5. Chandrasekaran, N., & Raghuram G. (2014). Agribusiness supply chain management (pp. 64 - 70). New York : Taylor & Francis.
6. Das, S. K. (2012). Best practices of self help groups and women empowerment: A case of Barak valley of Assam. Far East Journal of Psychology and Business ,7 (2), 25-47.
7. Gueguen, G. (2009). Competition and business ecosystems in the information technology sector: The example of intelligent mobile terminals. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business , 8 (1), 135-153. DOI: 10.1504/IJESB.2009.024109
8. Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
9. Iansiti, M. (2005). Managing the ecosystem. Optimize, 4 (2), 55-58.
10. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004a). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston : Harvard Business School Press.
11. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004b). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82 (3), 68-78.
12. Iansiti, M., & Richards, G. L. (2006). Information technology ecosystem : Structure, health, and performance. Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1), 77-110.
13. Kulkarni, S. (2004). Role of logistics in diary industry. Indian Journal of Marketing, 34 (3), 16 - 18.
14. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey : A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71 (3), 75-86.
15. Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons.
16. Prahalad, C.K., & Hammond, A. (2002).What works: Serving the poor, profitably. Washington DC, USA : World Resources Institute, Markle Foundation.
17. Reddy, C. S. (2005). SHGs: A keystone of micro finance in India - Women empowerment & social security. Hyderabad : Mahila Abhivruddhi Society, Andhra Pradesh (APMAS).
18. Singh, J. P. (2006). PEDO's SHG programme impact assessment : A draft report. Jaipur : Centre for Microfinance.
19. Tellis, W. (1997, July 2). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Retrieved from <a href=http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html target="_blank">http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html</a>
20. Xavier M. J., Raja J., & Usha Nandhini, S. (2008). Impact assessment of a rural women's entrepreneurship project using path analysis models. IIMB Management Review, 20 (2), 215-227.
21. Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, California : Sage Publications.
22. Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage Publications.
23. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications .