Digital Marketing for Industrial Products in Rural Markets: Evidence from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, India

This study aims to investigate the dynamics of digital technology adoption in rural India by examining how digital marketing shapes the purchase intentions for industrial products such as submersible pumps, agricultural machinery, urea fertilisers, and wire or solar cables in the rural markets of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. These regions collectively represent over a quarter of the nation’s rural population and act as key pillars of India’s agricultural sector. Despite improvements in digital connectivity, persistent barriers related to trust, the relevance of digital content, and transparency in after-sales services continue to limit the uptake of high-involvement industrial goods. Employing a cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical research design, this study draws on quantitative data from 120 rural respondents, equally divided between Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, and is supported by qualitative insights from interviews with retailers and installers. Comprehensive statistical analyses, including reliability tests, factor analysis, ANOVA, independent t-tests, and multiple linear regression, were conducted to evaluate the effects of five digital marketing constructs: Digital Awareness, Access Affordability, Digital Trust, Content Usefulness, and Service Visibility, on rural purchase intention. The findings indicate that all five constructs exert a significant positive impact on purchase intentions, with Digital Trust and Service Visibility playing the most pivotal roles; submersible pumps and solar cables emerged as the most responsive product categories, and Uttar Pradesh displayed stronger digital engagement, underpinned by better infrastructure and digital literacy efforts.
The research utilises Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for the validation of the measurement model (KMO = 0.861; Bartlett’s p < 0.001), while at the same time, it employs Cronbach’s Alpha to verify the reliability of the measurements (α ranging from 0.76 to 0.84). However, the differences in purchase intention among product categories are proven by the results of ANOVA (F = 4.12, p = 0.008), in which the high-involvement items, such as submersible pumps and solar cables, are indicated to be more digital marketing-sensitive than the low-involvement goods like urea. The independent-samples t-tests (t = 2.06, p = 0.041) reveal that Uttar Pradesh has a greater average of purchase intention (M = 3.74) in contrast to Bihar (M = 3.56), indicating that the better infrastructure and the policy-driven digital engagement in UP are contributors to the higher adoption. The multiple regression analysis (R² = 0.482, F = 21.22, p < 0.001) indicates that DT (β = 0.291, p < 0.001), SV (β = 0.258, p = 0.001), and CU (β = 0.221, p = 0.004) are the most powerful purchase intention predictors, whereas AA is just barely significant (p = 0.053).
The research aims to expand the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TBP) by including service visibility and trust as factors in the digital marketing mix. Manufacturers, policy makers and marketers are given practical insights as to how to create adoption by using the hybrid go-to-market (GTM) strategies which link digital discovery with local service assurance. Thus, this research brings both theoretical understanding and practical application of digital marketing in the case of emerging rural economies.

Digital marketing, rural markets, industrial products, purchase intention, SPSS, ANOVA, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, digital trust, service visibility

1. Aggarwal, P., Singh, K., & Rao, A. (2024). Digital engagement in rural micro-markets. Journal of Rural Innovations, 12(2), 45–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bhattacharya, S., & Roy, T. (2024). Trust frameworks for rural e-commerce adoption. Indian Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 17–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Central Electricity Authority. (2025). Energy consumption by state report 2024. New Delhi: Government of India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chawla, R., & Arora, M. (2022). Digital accountability in agricultural supply chains. AgriBusiness Review, 11(4), 112–123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Department of Fertilizers (GoI). (2024). Urea production rises to 314.07 LMT. Press Information Bureau. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Deshmukh, A. (2021). After-sales engagement in rural India. Marketing Frontiers, 9(2), 22–33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dutta, V. (2023). Digital outreach in agri-business supply networks. International Journal of Rural Commerce, 18(1), 66–78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Economic Times. (2025, July). 73 % MSMEs report growth via digital adoption. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fertilizer Association of India. (2025). Annual review 2023–24. New Delhi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Financial Express. (2025, January 17). Rural India extends lead in internet usage: IAMAI–Kantar. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Ghosh, S. (2024). Influence of content formats on rural buyer trust. Media Studies Quarterly, 7(1), 31–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Government of India. (2024). Rural development statistics handbook 2024. New Delhi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gu, C., Li, Z., & Zhou, X. (2025). Improving purchase intention for agricultural products via live streaming. Acta Psychologica, 240, 104892. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gupta, R., Kumar, S., & Malhotra, D. (2023). Social media engagement in rural households. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 101–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. IAMAI & Kantar. (2024). Internet in India 2024. New Delhi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Jain, R., & Verma, N. (2021). Social media penetration in rural India. Journal of Business and Society, 8(4), 99–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Joshi, J. (2021). MSME digital marketing adoption in India. Asian Journal of Management, 12(3), 221–236. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kadam, P., & Patil, A. (2023). Rural digital consumer decision journeys. South Asian Marketing Review, 15(2), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kaur, H., & Singh, M. (2023). Emotional narratives in rural advertising. Indian Journal of Marketing Studies, 52(4), 87–96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kumar, S., & Gupta, A. (2023). AgriBazaar and eNAM platforms in rural trade. Journal of AgriTech, 5(2), 73–84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kumar, S., & Rani, P. (2024). Digital trust determinants in rural commerce. Journal of Rural Development, 43(2), 112–125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lal, N. (2024). Behavioral segmentation in rural digital markets. Marketing Intelligence Quarterly, 19(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mahato, D., Patra, R., & Sethi, A. (2023). Rural mobile-first adoption: A cross-regional study. Telecom Insights India, 10(3), 77–89. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mehta, R. (2024). Predictive analytics in fertilizer logistics. Operations & Supply Chain Journal, 14(1), 45–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. (2024). Digital India progress report 2024. New Delhi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Mishra, P., & Dey, S. (2022). Effectiveness of WhatsApp-based video marketing in agriculture. Communication Studies, 30(2), 55–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Motilal Oswal. (2024). Cables & wires: Powering the Indian growth story. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mohan, V., & Iyer, K. (2025). Hybrid media effects on rural decision-making. Asian Journal of Business Research, 27(2), 88–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Panwar, A. (2025). Digital buying behavior among farmers: The impact of digital platforms. International Journal of Information Systems in Emerging Markets, 11(1), 34–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Patel, M., & Raj, R. (2023). Mobile app news consumption in rural India. Journal of Information Literacy, 9(3), 66–79. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Patra, R., & Sethi, A. (2024). Peer endorsement in rural digital buying. Indian Marketing Review, 13(2), 121–134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Prakash, P., Rao, K., & Das, A. (2024). Supply chain analytics in agritech ecosystems. Journal of Business Analytics, 7(3), 211–228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Raghavan, S. (2023). Policy impacts on rural digital enterprises. Journal of Economic Policy Research, 16(4), 91–108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Rani, P. (2024). Vernacular content effectiveness in rural communication. Language and Society Journal, 8(1), 56–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Sambrani, S. (2018). Understanding rural markets: Opportunities and challenges. Rural Marketing Review, 6(2), 15–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Saxena, V. (2024). Socioeconomic predictors of rural digital literacy. Educational Perspectives India, 21(3), 102–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Shah, R., Kapoor, M., & De, A. (2023). Digital inclusion trends in North India. ICT Journal, 14(2), 133–149. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Singh, R., & Mishra, A. (2022). Influence of local opinion leaders in rural buying. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study