Entrepreneurial Marketing of Agripreneurs During Kisan Mela at GBPUAT, Pantnagar

Entrepreneurial marketing (EM) is an innovative, opportunity-driven, and resource-efficient approach that combines entrepreneurial thinking with marketing strategies to drive business growth in uncertain environments (Morris et al., 2002). Unlike traditional marketing, which often follows structured and formalized processes, EM emphasizes adaptability, customer engagement, and proactive risk-taking—qualities especially relevant to startups and small enterprises (Miles & Darroch, 2006). In agribusiness, where market dynamics, resource limitations, and customer behaviors vary widely, EM plays a crucial role in helping agripreneurs create and deliver value effectively (Kraus et al., 2012).

Agripreneurs—entrepreneurs engaged in agriculture-related ventures—operate in a complex ecosystem influenced by seasonal trends, policy frameworks, rural consumer behavior, and technological innovation (Linh et al., 2021).  EM enables the entrepreneurs use of creative and cost-effective tactics such as storytelling, direct selling, product demonstrations, and grassroots branding to connect with rural customers (Morris et al., 2002). These personalized strategies are often more impactful than mass advertising in rural settings where trust, reputation, and community engagement matter deeply (Jones & Rowley, 2011). Moreover, platforms such as agricultural fairs and exhibitions allow agripreneurs to test new products, engage customers directly, and receive real-time feedback. Events like the Kisan Mela at GBPUAT Pantnagar exemplify how EM allows rural entrepreneurs to build market presence, foster innovation, and promote inclusive economic development. As agripreneurship gains prominence in national development agendas like Atmanirbhar Bharat, understanding and applying EM strategies becomes critical for building sustainable rural enterprises (MoA&FW, 2024). As Alquatani et al. (2021) emphasized, entrepreneurial marketing is driven by the continuously searching and exploitating opportunities, even in uncertain environments. Finally, calculated risk-taking was evident among agripreneurs who had diversified their offerings or invested in new packaging, branding, or product trials despite limited capital. These decisions reflect the entrepreneurial courage to experiment and absorb short-term setbacks for potential long-term gains, which aligns with findings from Becherer et al. (2012).

This research explores the entrepreneurial marketing practices of entrepreneurs participating in Kisan Mela at GBPUAT Pantnagar using the scale developed by Alqahtani et al. The study will employ a quantitative approach through a survey of 52 Agripreneurs. The questionnaire was based on the ENMAR scale, measuring dimensions such as innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, and customer intensity.

 Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) behavior of 52 agripreneurs participating in the Kisan Mela at GBPUAT, using the Alquatani EM scale. The scale comprises five core constructs: Innovative Marketing, Proactive Marketing, Resource Leveraging, Network Attention, and Acceptable Risk.

Respondents rated multiple items under each construct using a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s Alpha was to assess the reliability and internal consistency of the scale. Additionally, inter-construct relationships were examined through a correlation matrix.

Socio-economic Characteristics of Agripreneurs

The socioeconomic profile of the 52 agripreneurs surveyed during the study reveals insightful patterns in  age, income, investment levels, and educational background. These characteristics play a significant role in shaping entrepreneurial behavior, resource utilization, and marketing strategies.

Age Distribution

The age of agripreneurs ranged from 20 to 50 years, with the majority (46.2%) falling in the 30–39 years category. Around 23.1% of the respondents were aged 20–29 years, 25.0% were in the 40–49 years bracket, and only 5.7% were aged 50 years and above. This indicates many agripreneurs belong to the young and middle-aged category, which is generally associated with greater energy, innovation, and openness to adopting new marketing strategies. These findings are supported by Lumpkin and Dess (1996) and Urbano and Turró (2013).

 Monthly Income

The monthly income of agripreneurs showed considerable variation, ranging from ₹10,000 to ₹40,000. The highest proportion (34.6%) earned between ₹16,000 – ₹25,000, followed by 30.8% earning ₹26,000 – ₹35,000. About 19.2% earned less than ₹15,000 per month, while 15.4% reported incomes above ₹35,000. These figures reflect a mix of subsistence-level and moderately profitable agribusinesses, highlighting the need for targeted support and resource optimization. Most agripreneurs earning between ₹16,000 to ₹25,000 (34.6%) aligns with findings by Patel (2021), who reported that small-scale agribusiness owners often attain modest profitability due to limited capital investment and market access.

 Investment in Agribusiness

Regarding investment, the majority (34.6%) had invested between ₹1,21,000 and ₹2,00,000 in their ventures. Around 26.9% invested between ₹71,000 and ₹1,20,000, while 23.1% had higher investments ranging from ₹2,01,000 to ₹3,00,000. Only 15.4% had investments below ₹70,000. These results suggest that many agripreneurs are willing to take financial risks and invest significantly in their businesses, reflecting entrepreneurial intent and growth orientation. The finding that the majority (34.6%) of agripreneurs invested between ₹1,21,000 and ₹2,00,000 reflects a strong entrepreneurial commitment, consistent with the observations of Mehta and Jha (2021), who reported that medium-scale investments often correlate with moderate business expansion and income growth.

Educational Background

Education levels varied among the agripreneurs, with 44.2% being graduates and 21.2% postgraduates, suggesting a relatively well-educated respondent base. Meanwhile, 25.0% had completed higher secondary education, and 9.6% had only secondary-level schooling. This indicates that many agripreneurs possess the educational background necessary to understand and apply entrepreneurial marketing principles effectively.

Table 1: Combined Socioeconomic Characteristics of Agripreneurs (n = 52)

Entrepreneurial Marketing of Agripreneurs

Innovativeness

The analysis revealed that most respondents (67.30%) rated their organization’s innovativeness as high. Only 21.15% rated it low, while 11.54% fell into the moderate category. This suggests that most firms consider themselves capable of adopting novel marketing practices, pricing strategies, and communication approaches—an essential strength in today’s competitive landscape. Calantone et. al (2002) point out that firms with low innovativeness often face challenges in responding to market changes and may lag behind more agile competitors.

Proactive Marketing

For proactive marketing, 51.92% of the participants indicated high levels, reflecting a proactive orientation in anticipating customer needs and adapting to market changes. Meanwhile, 26.92% of responses fell into the low category, and 21.15% were moderate. This result indicates that while a proactive mindset exists in over half of the organizations, a significant proportion still lacks forward-thinking marketing strategies.

Network Attention

Network attention was identified as relatively lower than other constructs, with only 48.07% of respondents reporting high levels. A notable 28.84% of respondents rated their organization’s network attention low, and 23.08% as moderate. These findings suggest that many organizations may not fully leverage insights from stakeholders and partners, which can limit opportunities for strategic collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Resource Leveraging

Resource leveraging received a high rating from 55.77% of respondents, with 26.92% reporting low levels and 17.31% moderate. The relatively high percentage in the “high” category indicates that many organizations are actively collaborating and utilizing internal and partner resources effectively. However, the one-quarter in the low category signals room for improvement in strategic resource management.

Acceptable Risk

Most respondents (51.93%) reported a high level of acceptable risk, suggesting that over half of the firms are comfortable taking calculated risks to remain competitive. However, 28.84% perceived their organizations as risk-averse (low category), and 19.23% were neutral (moderate). This distribution indicates a general openness toward risk, which is essential for innovation and entrepreneurship, although some firms may still hesitate to invest beyond their comfort zones.

Table 2: Entrepreneurial Marketing of Agripreneurs in Kisan mela (n=52)

Reliability Analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha):

To ensure the scale items accurately measured their respective EM dimensions, Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for each construct.

Table 3: Reliability Analysis of E.M of Agripreneurs in Kisan Mela at GBPUAT, Pantnagar

To assess the internal consistency of the survey constructs, Cronbach's Alpha was calculated for each of the five domains: Innovative Marketing, Proactive Marketing, Resource Leveraging, Network Attention, and Acceptable Risk. A value above 0.7 is generally considered acceptable, with values above 0.8 indicating good to excellent reliability. These results suggest that all five constructs exhibit satisfactory internal consistency. Four domains (Proactive Marketing, Resource Leveraging, Network Attention, and Acceptable Risk) demonstrated excellent reliability, with alpha values exceeding 0.84. The domain Innovative Marketing also showed good reliability, with a value of 0.726, slightly above the accepted threshold. The slightly lower alpha value for Innovative Marketing may indicate that while the items are generally consistent, there could be one or more items within that domain that are not as strongly aligned with the others. This warrants further inspection through item-level analysis to determine whether removing or revising certain statements could improve reliability. However, since the alpha value is still above 0.7, the scale remains usable in its current form.Overall, the Cronbach's Alpha analysis validates the internal consistency of the survey items, suggesting that the constructs were well-defined and the respondents coherently interpreted the questions. The high reliability across most domains also supports the robustness of the instrument used for data collection.

 Correlation Analysis Between Constructs: To understand the interrelationship among different EM constructs, a Pearson correlation matrix was computed using the mean score of each construct.

Table 4: Correlation matrix between different constructs of Entrepreneurial Marketing

To understand the interrelationship among different EM constructs, a Pearson correlation matrix was computed using the mean score of each construct. All five constructs are positively correlated, with most correlation values falling in the strong range (0.70 to 0.89). The highest correlation was observed between Network Attention and Acceptable Risk (r = 0.854), indicating that effective respondents in maintaining networks are also more inclined to take acceptable levels of risk. This suggests a potential link between social capital and risk tolerance in entrepreneurial or strategic marketing contexts. The second highest correlation was between Resource Leveraging and Network Attention (r = 0.852), implying that individuals who effectively utilize resources tend to be well-networked. Proactive Marketing showed strong correlations with Resource Leveraging (r = 0.838) and Innovative Marketing (r = 0.792), further reinforcing that proactive strategies are often supported by creativity and resourcefulness. The weakest, yet still moderately strong, relationship was between Innovative Marketing and Acceptable Risk (r = 0.687). While still within the range of practical significance, this slightly lower value suggests that innovation may be somewhat independent from risk acceptance compared to the other constructs.

Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) behavior of agripreneurs participating in the Kisan Mela at GBPUAT, utilizing the Alquatani EM scale to assess five key domains: Innovative Marketing, Proactive Marketing, Resource Leveraging, Network Attention, and Acceptable Risk. The results demonstrated strong internal consistency across all constructs, with Cronbach’s Alpha values confirming the scale’s reliability. The inter-construct correlation analysis further revealed strong positive relationships among the domains, suggesting that these entrepreneurial behaviors are interconnected and often reinforce one another in practice. The findings highlight that agripreneurs who exhibit proactive marketing tendencies are also likely to be innovative, resourceful, well-networked, and willing to take calculated risks. This integrated nature of EM behaviors supports the applicability of the Alquatani scale in agricultural settings and reinforces its relevance in assessing entrepreneurial capacity among rural entrepreneurs. Notably, the study underlines the critical role of social capital, resource optimization, and market foresight in enabling agripreneurs to thrive in dynamic and often uncertain environments. Entrepreneurial marketing among agripreneurs is not only measurable but also strategically actionable. Programs aiming to foster agripreneurship should take a holistic approach, simultaneously promoting all dimensions of EM. The insights derived from this research can serve as a foundation for designing more targeted, impactful, and sustainable entrepreneurship development interventions in the agricultural sector.

Alquatani, A., Othman, A. R., & Othman, R. (2021). Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions and their impact on performance of small enterprises: A conceptual framework. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies.

Becherer, R. C., Helms, M. M., & McDonald, J. P. (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial marketing on outcome goals in SMEs. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 7-18.

Bjerke, B., & Hultman, C. M. (2002). Entrepreneurial marketing: The growth of small firms in the new economic era. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hills, G. E., Hultman, C., & Miles, M. P. (2008). The evolution and development of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 99-112.

Kraus, S., Harms, R., & Fink, M. (2012). Entrepreneurial marketing: Moving beyond marketing in new ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 16(4), 294–308.

Morris, M. H., Schindehutte, M., & LaForge, R. W. (2002). Entrepreneurial marketing: A construct for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 1–19.

Stokes, D. (2000). Putting entrepreneurship into marketing: The processes of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–16.

Alqahtani, N., Macpherson, A., & Wilson, A. (2022). Entrepreneurial marketing in small and medium enterprises: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 139, 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.019

GBPUAT. (2025). 117th All India Farmers' Fair and Agricultural Industry Exhibition. Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. Retrieved from https://www.gbpuat.ac.in/Mela/index.html

Kandpal, A. S., & Sharma, A. (2024). Entrepreneurial Marketing Behavior of Agripreneurs: Challenges and Opportunities. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378129610_Entrepreneurial_Marketing_Behavior_of_Agripreneurs_Challenges_and_Opportunities

Kisan of India. (2022). Pantnagar Kisan Mela 2022 Highlights. Kisan of India. Retrieved from https://www.kisanofindia.com/latest-news/pantnagar-kisan-Mela-2022-highlights/14058

Morris, M.H., Schindehutte, M., & LaForge, R.W. (2002). Entrepreneurial marketing: A construct for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 1–19.

Miles, M.P., & Darroch, J. (2006). Large firms, entrepreneurial marketing processes, and the cycle of competitive advantage. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 485–501.

Kraus, S., Harms, R., & Fink, M. (2012). Entrepreneurial marketing: Moving beyond marketing in new ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 16(4), 194–206.

Linh, N.T.T., Tung, N.T., & Son, N.H. (2021). The influence of entrepreneurial marketing on firm performance in agriculture. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 28(2), 200–218.

Jones, R., & Rowley, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial marketing in small businesses: A conceptual exploration. International Small Business Journal, 29(1), 25–36.

GBPUAT. (2025). All India Farmers' Fair and Agricultural Industry Exhibition. Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology.

Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare (MoA&FW). (2024). Atmanirbhar Krishi: Roadmap for Self-Reliant Agriculture.

Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6