CONSEQUENCE OF IN STORE MERCHANDISING PRACTICES A ...

University of Hawaii, Ph.D., -1969Economics, agricultural

WONG, Henry LiNan, 1940-AN EXAMINATION OF IMPULSE BUYINGOR IN-WE-STORE PURCHASE DECISIONSAS A CONSEQUENCE OF ~ STOREMERCHANDISING PRACTICES.

r- "------ ------- ------------------------------.--- - - -~ - ~~----- ---j

) This dissertation has been fmicrofilmed exactly as received 70-4320 I

II

\I;\

\t(

IIIL University ~~crof~S: Inc.• Ann Arbor. MIchigan

...._- - - _.--- .-...- _.'-' .,. - .-. _... _-- ..-_.- _.- ~--_.-

AN EXAMINATION OF IMPULSE BUYING OR

IN-THE-STORE PURCHASE DECISIONS AS A

CONSEQUENCE OF IN STORE MERCHANDISING PRACTICES

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

JUNE 1969

By

Henry LiNan Wong

Dissertation Committee:

Arnold B. Larson, ChairmanJere R. BoyerBurnham O. CampbellJack R. DavidsonHeinz Spielmann

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the cooperation of the management

of Star Supermarkets for providing the test store and the grateful thanks

to the 700 shoppers who allowed themselves to be interviewed.

The author acknowledges the U. S. Office of Education which provided

the NDEA Title IV Fellowship for the course of the study.

Sincere appreciation is due my wife Laurie, whose patience,

encouragement, understanding and typing of the drafts certainly

contributed to the completion of this research.

iii

ABSTRACT

Food retailing is an important segment of Hawaii's economy. The

national trend of consumer expenditures is toward an increasing number

of purchases without advance planning. The present study was based on

empirical information obtained from a group of 700 shoppers in a

representative supermarket in Honolulu, Hawaii, d·~:;L'.;lg a five-week test

period. It was hypothesized that consumers are aware of marketing

techniques; namely, multiple pricing and increased display space on

selected items. The primary objectives of this study were to find the

behavior patterns of supermarket shoppers in Hawaii and their awareness

of merchandising techniques and to ascertain how multiple pricing and

increased display space influence the shopper in Hawaii to purchase

unplanned selected items among the many that are avai1able~ and to

determine the impact these merchandisi~g practices have on sales. The

selections of the test items were based on a study conducted by Jere

Boyer, Food Distribution Specialist, entitled Producing Profits (A

Training Clinic on Retail Produce Department Operation). The selections

were also based on the sales of the supermarket chain and the fact that

these products were representative of Hawaii. The high demand item was

navel oranges; the semi-demand item was turnips; and the low demand item

was bell peppers.

Answers given to the following questions showed similarities between

shoppers in Hawaii and on the Mainland.

1. Who does the family shopping?

2. How many marketing trips are taken per week?

3. How many stores are frequented per week?

iv

4. How many food ads are read per week?

Some findings that showed a marked deviation from Mainland findings

were:

1. A greater number of Island shoppers used a written shopping

list.

2. More Island women shoppers were fully employed.

3. Household incomes of Island shoppers are higher than on the

Mainland.

4. Island shoppers come from more varied ethnic groups.

Aside from these few deviations, Island shoppers are very similar to

their counterparts on the Mainland.

The statistical test, analysis of variance, was used to see if

weekly volume movements were significantly different. The findings w~re:

1. 'The sale of navel oranges could be increased by increasing the

display space even at the rather high cost of 30¢ per pound.

2. The sale of turnips was influenced by multiple pricing.

3. Each of the variables, multiple pricing and increased display

space, increased the sale of bell peppers slightly.

The effectiveness of the merchandising techniques, multiple pricing

and increased display space was identified with the number of unplanned

purchases the marketing technique induced. The results were:

1. The greatest number of unplanned purchases of navel oranges

occurred in the week where the test variable was increased

display space (35.9 pe".cent of all purchases unplanned).

2. The greatest number of unplanned purchases of turnips occurred

in the week where the test variable was multiple pricing

v

(21.1 percent of all purchases unplanned).

3. The greatest number of unplanned purchases of bell peppers

occurred in the week where the test variable was multiple

pricing (44.7 percent of all purchases unplanned).

There was no indication that increased display space or multiple

pricing added significantly to the number of unplanned purchases.

It was concluded that the shoppers' awareness of price and display

changes is minimal at the ranges of prices and display spaces for navel

oranges, turnips, and bell peppers.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATE OF THE PROBLEM

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS •

. . . . . . . . .

1

ii

ix

vii

iii

· . .· . .· . .

· . . . .. . . .

. .

. .. . . .

. . . . .

. . .

. . . .. . . . . . .

. . .. .

CHAPTER I.

PREFACE •••

ABSTRACT

. . . . . . . . .CHAPTER II. METHOD OF STUDY

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

. . · . . . . . . . 7

13

General Background of Hawaii's PopulationTest Store Environment • • • • • • • • • •

· .. . . . . . 1319

CHAPTER IV. SHOPPER CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR.

Characteristics of ShoppersShopping Patterns •••••

. . . . . . . .· . . .

. . . . . .

· .

27

2734

CHAPTER V. THE IMPACT OF MULTIPLE PRICING AND INCREASEDDISPLAY SPACE ON SALES OF SELECTED PRODUCE ITEMS

Weekly Purchases Compared • • • • ••Cost Per-Unit Versus Cost Per-Pound

· . . .. .· .

· .· . .

47

6667

CHAPTER VI. UNPLANNED PURCHASES AND CONSUMERAWARENESS OF MERCHANDISING TECHNIQUES ••• · . 71

Unplanned Purchases ••••••••• • • • • • • • •Consumer Awareness of Applied Merchandising Techniques •Reasons for Purchases ••••••••••• • •Reasons for not Purchasing • • • • • • • • • • • • · . .

71768186

CHAPTER VII. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY. · . 92

Suggestions for Further Research •

. . .· . . . . . . .

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

. . · . .. .. .

· . . . .· . .

94

96

157

vii

LIST OF TABLES

.Tab1e

I HOURS OF THE TEST STORE • · . . . . . 21

HOUSEHOLD INCOMES OF ALL SHOPPERS •

II

III

IV

ETHNIC CLASSIFICATIONS

AGE OF SHOPPERS • • • •

. . . .· . .

. . . . . .

. . . .

28

29

29

V

VI

PERCENTAGE OF SHOPPERS AND MEMBERS IN A HOUSEHOLD •

EDUCATION LEVEL OF SHOPPERS •

31

32

VII

VIII

OCCUPATION OF SHOPPERS •• •

WHO DOES THE FAMILY SHOPPING?

· . . . . . .. . . . . . .

33

35

IX WHO DOES THE FAMILY SHOPPING? MAINLAND AND HAWAIICOMPARISON •• • • • • • • • 35

X TYPES OF SHOPPING LIST •• • . . . . . . · . . • •• 36

XI

XII

XIII

HOW OFTEN DOES THE SHOPPER VISIT THE SUPERMARKET?

PERCENTAGE OF SUPERMARKET SHOPPERS SHOPPINGSPECIFIED NUMBERS OF TIMES PER WEEK • •

MAJOR SHOPPING DAYS • • • • • • • • •

. . . 37

38

39

XIV NUMBER OF STORES FREQUENTED PER WEEK . . . . . . . . . •• 40

xv

XVI

PERCENTAGE OF SUPERMARKET SHOPPERS PATRONIZINGMORE THAN ONE STORE PER WEEK • • • • • • • • • •

DISTANCE TRAVELED TO THE SUPERMARKET •••••

41

•• 42

XVII

XVIII

REASONS FOR PATRONIZING THE TEST STORE

NUMBER OF GROCERY ADS READ PER WEEK • •

. .. .

• •• 43

. • 44

XIX

xx

XXI

NUMBER OF SUPERMARKET ADVERTISEMENTS READPER AD-READING SHOPPER • • • • • • • • •

"DO TRADING STAMPS CAUSE YOU TO BUY MORE?" ••

TEST SCHEDULE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

· . . .· . . .

44

45

•• 48

XXII DAILY VOLUME MOVEMENTS (IN LBS.) OF NAVEL ORANGES, TURNISP,AND BELL PEPPERS FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXPERIMENT • • •• 50

Table

XXIII

XXIV

xxv

XXVI

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TWO CRITERIA OFCLASSU'ICATION, DAYS AND WEEKS, FOR NAVEL ORANGES

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TWO CRITERIA OFCLASSIFICATION, DAYS AND WEEKS, FOR TURNIPS •••

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TWO CRITERIA OFCLASSIFICATION, DAYS AND WEEKS, FOR BELL PEPPERS

SIGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR NAVEL ORANGES,TURNIPS, AND BELL PEPPERS • • • • • •

· . . .

· . . .

viii

58

61

63

65

XXVII

XXVIII

REASONS GIVEN FOR BUYING BELL PEPPERSPRICED AT 12¢ APIECE • • • •• • • •

REASONS GIVEN FOR BUYING BELL PEPPERSPRICED AT 49¢/LB. • • • • • • • • • •

· . . . . . . . . .

· . . . . . . . . .

68

69

XXIX UNPLANNED PURCHASES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PURCHASES • 72

xxx ,

XXXI

UNPLANNED PURCHASES AS A PERCENT OFALL PURCHASES, BY AGE GROUP • • • • • • • • • • •

UNPLANNED PURCHASES AS A PERCENT OF ALLPURCHASES AND THE MAJOR OR FILL-IN SHOPPING TRIP

· . . .

· . . .

74

75

· . . .XXXIII TEST SCHEDULE • • • • • • • • • •

XXXII UNPLANNED PURCHASES OR A PERCENT OF TOTALPURCHASES BY WHO DOES THE FAMILY SHOPPING • . . .

. .77

79

XXXIV

xxxv

SHOPPERS' AWARENESS OF DISPLAYS •••

REASONS FOR PURCHASING NAVEL ORANGES

· . . .· . . . . .

80

82

XXXVI REASONS FOR PURCHASING TURNIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

XXXVII REASONS FOR PURCHASING BELL PEPPERS •

XXXVIII REASONS FOR NOT PURCHASING NAVEL ORANGES

. . . . .. . .

85

87

XXXIX REASONS FOR NOT PURCHASING TURNIPS • • • • • 89

XL REASONS FOR NOT PURCHASING BELL PEPPERS • · . . . · . . . 90

. . . . . . . . . .

Figure

1

2

3

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION OFHAWAII BY ETHNIC ORIGIN, 1946-1965 •••

AGE COMPOSITION OF POPULATION OF HAWAIIBETWEEN 1900 AND 1960 • • • • • • • •

PER CAPITA INCOME FOR HAWAII AND U.S.BETWEEN 1948 AND 1965 • • • • • • • •

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

ix

14

16

17

4 INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN THE STATE OF HAWAII: 1946-1965 18

5

6

MAP OF CENTRAL HONOLULU

LAYOUT OF THE TEST STORE •

· .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

22

7

8

9

10

INDEX OF DAILY SALES RECEIPTS OF TEST STORE FORTHE DURATION OF THE EXPERIMENT • • • • • • • • •

INDEX OF DAILY CUSTOMER COUNT OF TEST STORE FORTHE DURATION OF THE EXPERIMENT • • • • • • • • •

INDEX OF DAILY TOTAL PRODUCE SALES OF TEST STOREFOR THE DURATION OF THE EXPERIMENT •

MEMBERS IN A HOUSEHOLD • • • • • • • • • • •

· . . . .· . . . .

· . . . .

24

25

26

30

11 POUNDS OF NAVEL ORANGES SOLD DAILY FORDURATION OF EXPERIMENT • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . ., . . 51

12

13

14

POUNDS OF TURNIPS SOLD FOR DURATION OF EXPERIMENT

POUNDS OF BELL PEPPERS SOLD FOR DURATION OF EXPERIMENT

COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF SELLING BELL PEPPERS ••

. . 52

53

54

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The trend of consumer expenditures is toward an increasing number

of purchases without advance planning. Between 1945 and 1959, the

unplanned purchases as a percent of total purchases in supermarkets rose

from 38.2 percent to 50 percent. l Impulse products anq,·their respective,

placements within a supermarket have been shown to greatly affect profits.

The interior of the store should be conducive to aiding the shoppers in

deciding their purchases. The use of such merchandising strategy tends

to increase food sales with very little additional costs.

Impulse buying is affected by factors such as economy, personality,

time, location and culture. Interestingly, these factors may vary from

shopper to shopper with respect to the purchase of the same item. Also

these factors may vary for the same shopper buying the same item under

different buying situations. This results in the delineation of four

broad classifications of impulse buying.

1. Pure Impulse Buying. This is truly impulse buying; the novelty

or escape purchase which breaks a normal buying pattern.

2. Reminder Impulse Buying. Reminder impulse buying occurs when

a shopper sees an item and remembers that the stock at home is

exhausted or low, or recalls advertisement or other information

about the item and a previous desire to buy. The key factor is

remembered prior experience with the product, or knowledge of

lHawkins Stern, "The Significance of Impulse Buying Today," Journalof Marketing, XXVI (April, 1962), 59-62.

2

it, which "sparks" the impulse purchase.

3. Suggestion Impulse Buying. Suggestion buying occurs when a

shopper sees a product for the first time and visualizes a need

for it, even though she has no previous knowledge of the item.

Suggestion buying is distinguished from reminder buying in that

the shopper has no prior knowledge of the product to assist her

in the purchase. Product quality, function, and the like must

be evaluated at the point of sale. The distinction between

suggestion buying and pure impulse buying is that items

purchased on suggestion impulse can also be entirely rational

or functional purchases, as opposed to the emotional appeal

which sparks pure impulse purchases.

4. Planned Impulse Buying. Although "planned impulse buying" may

seem anomalous, it is accurate. Planned impulse buying occurs

when the shopper enters the store with some specific purchase

in mind, but with the expectation and intention to make other

purchases that depend on price specials, coupon offers, and the

like. It is a recently developed consumer buying trait and

likely to be a most significant one. 2

It seems that shoppers enter the store with a general intention to

buy, but they make the actual buying decision at the point of purchase.

The growth of self-service food stores apparently has developed this

kind of planned impulse buying because the shopper can explore, compare

and arrive at a decision unhindered by a sales clerk. The use of

2Stern , ~. £!l., pp. 59-60.

3

advertising and in-store displays provide the shopper with product

information so the shopper can make a decision. Probably the most

important way in which the individual supermarket can adjust to the

increased practice of impulse buying is to induce the shopper to use the

store itself as a substitute for a personal food shopping list.

Especially where there is weak store loyalty, the shopper should be

encouraged to make her impulse purchases in that particular store,

thereby increasing store sales.

Previous studies of consumer behavior have dealt mostly with

planned purchases. Although unplanned purchasing, or impulse buying, is

an extremely important factor in relation to modern day merchandising

and promotional efforts, only limited research has been advanced in this

area. A series of studies of impulse buying was done by E. I. DuPont

DeN~mours and Company, "Consumer Buying Habits Studies," for 1945, 1949,

1954, and 1964. Some of the more interesting results were:

1. Nearly 7 of 10 purchases resulted from a decision made within

the store.

2. Sixty-three percent of the shoppers had no written shopping

lists.

3. The shopper spent an average of 26.1 minutes in a supermarket

per shopping trip. (This means that in a supermarket with

6,500 separate items the individual items have only one-fourth

of a second to catch the shopper's eye.)

4. Chewing gum (family pack) was the item that was most

"impulsive." (Eighty-nine percent were unplanned

4

purchases.) 3

Behavior patterns of supermarket shoppers have been changing with

the times. Mainland studies like Schapker's "Behavior Patterns of

Supermarket Shoppers" have tried to explain changing behavior patterns,

probing into questions such as: 1) What are the reasons for the decline

in supermarket shopping loyalty during the past decade? 2) How many

times per week does the supermarket customer shop? 3) Why is readership

of foods tore advertising in newspapers increasing? 4) Is interest in

saving trading stamps on the wane?4

The general attractiveness of the store environment, including the

aisles, air-conditioning, good lighting, and cleanliness, while it

undoubtedly contributes to patronage for planned purchases, probably has

a particularly great effect on the nature and level of unplanned

purchases. Store layout, through its effect on traffic flows, and

placement of displays also have a profound effect on impulse buying. It

is generally supposed that impulse buying of a particular item can be

increased by devoting a larger area of display space to the item, by

multiple pricing as opposed to pricing per pound, or by pricing on a

unit cost rather than a per pound basis. The effect of each of these

presumed factors is probably influenced by personal characteristics of

the shoppers, especially age, household income, sex, employment status,

store loyalty, knowledgeability with respect to food prices, and use of

3"Today , s Purchases in Supermarkets," E. 1. DuPont DeNemours andCo., The 7th DuPont Consumer Buying Habits Study, 1964.

4Ben L. Schapker, "Behavior Patterns of Supermarket Shoppers,"Journal of Marketing, XXX (Oct., 1966), 46-49.

5

a shopping list.

All previous studies of impulse buying were cOndtlcted on the

Mainland. The relative importance of impulse buying, and the shopper's

response to merchandising practices designed to increase such buying,

might well be different in Hawaii, especially if shoppers differ from

their Mainland counterparts in relevant personal characteristics.

Previously, the effects of multiple pricing and increased display

space on sales and consumer response were studied separately. This study

is a different approach because there was an attempt to link the two

types of studies together. The experiment was designed in such a way

that a consumer questionnaire was used as a vehicle for feedback of the

consumer's activities in relation to the experiment. Thus, the method

combined shopper interviews of awareness of marketing practices with

emphasis on unplanned purchases and the analysis of variance to compare

differences occurring between the control week and the test weeks.

The problem of the researcher was to find the behavior patterns of

supermarket shoppers in Hawaii and their awareness of merchandising

techniques. An additional problem was to ascertain how multiple pricing

and increased display space influence the shopper in Hawaii to purchase

unplanned selected items among the many that are available, and the

impact these merchandising practices have on sales. Related to this

was a study of the effect of unit cost versus per pound cost of a

selected item.

It has frequently been assumed that when the sales of an item had

been increased by multiple pricing and increased display space, the

consumers were aware of this and adjusted their shopping activities

6

accordingly. This assumption was tested. The hypothesis is that

consluners are aware of merchandising techniques; namely, multiple pricing

and increased display space of selected items.

CHAPTER II

METHOD OF STUDY

Typically, food retailers expect that merchandising practices like

multiple pricing and increased display space applied to an item can

increase sales by encouraging an increase in the number of impulse

purchases. This assumption is based on past experiences and previous

studies substantiating this. Food retailers are also cognizant of the

effects of competing items to the test item. Changing any aspect of

the display of the competing items could also be a cause for a change in

the level of sales of the test item. Likewise, seasonal demand for

another product could affect sales of the test item, thus making it

increasingly difficult to obtain an accurate measurement of the effects

of the variable being tested. Basically, any change in the

merchandising of an item can affect many other items in the store. In

light of this, one can see the near impossibility of designing an

experiment for testing one or two variab1es,and at the same time,

eliminating all other inFerferLng'factors.

The purpose of the study was not only to determine how multiple

pricing and increased display space would affect sales but to see

whether consumers would be aware that these merchandising techniques

were directly causing them to purchase these items. Thus a controlled

experimental design coupled with the use of a consumer questionnaire

was selected as the most effective method to cope with the problem.

In this way the difficult task of isolating all other factors was not

necessary for the success of the study. Having normal proceedings of

the store was deemed adequate since the consumer questionnaire was used

8

as a reinforcement for testing the effects of the test variable.

The Moiliili store of the local supermarket chain was selected as

the test store. The fact that only one store was selected was due not

only to the commercial restraints placed by the chain involved but also

to the financial and physical limitations of the researcher. However,

it was felt that the selected store was representative of Hawaii in

terms of location, education, income, and cultural background.

The study called for testing the effect of multiple pricing and

increased display space on a demand, semi~demand and low demand produce

item. A demand item is a fast moving sales item. A low demand item is

a slow moving sales item and a semi~demand item is a sales item that

falls between the two limits. Ideally, different food products should

be tested. A number of limiting factors prevented many products from

"being chosen for this test. Products where price specials were used had

to be discarded. Another group of products where space was limited was

rejected. The management rejected any ideas where a change in the

store's image would have occurred. The allocation of pricing and

increased display space of the test items had to conform to the

management's guidelines.

Since only a limited number of produce items could be tested, a

high demand, semi-demand and low demand item were chosen in an effort to

obtain different kinds of commodities and to see if multiple pricing and

increased display space would affect these items any differently.

Although the experiment was limited to only three items, for which valid

results were found, it i~ felt that these results suggest the kind of

reactions the consumer has formed in regards to merchandising practices

9

for other similar items. Thus the fact that a change in sales can be

made on these items suggests that future study on other items using the

same method could be beneficial. So although one cannot generalize, for

instance, that the same results obtained for the high demand product

tested will be obtained when testing another high-demand item, it can

suggest a possible trend in that direction.

From a study made in Hawaii by Mr. Jere Boyer, Food Distribution

Specialist, navel oranges were found to be demand items because they

accounted for over 8 percent of all produce sales. Bell peppers were

low demand items for they accounted for 1.5 percent of all produce sales.

A semi-demand item was turnips, sales of which accounted for a percentage

between navel oranges and bell peppers.* The selection of these test

items for the study was based on both Boyer's study and the sales of

the selected supermarket chain in Hawaii. The three selected produce

items thus were navel oranges, turnips, and bell peppers.

The management of the supermarket agreed that the three designated

test products would not be advertised during the duration of the

experiment.

The data was collected through personal interviews. The

questionnaire consisted of forty-two questions and took an average of

six minutes to comp1ete~ (The questionnaire can be found in the

Appendix.) The survey took five weeks at the designated store. During

the test period all other factors were held constant through a

combination of experimental and statistical controls. Sales and volume

*Study entitled Producing Profits (A Training Clinic on RetailProduce Department Operation).

10

responses to changes in the display space and multiple pricing for the

three designated products were measured. Inventories of navel oranges,

turnips and bell peppers were recorded daily. With the cooperation of

the store manager the following schedule was carried out:

1st Week (Control): Regular Pricing and Given Display Space

2nd Week: Regular Pricing and Increased Display Space

3rd Week: Multiple Pricing and Regular Display Space

4th Week: Multiple Pricing and Increased Display Space

5th Week: Cost Per Pound Display Versus Cost Per Unit Display

During the five weeks of testing, shoppers were asked a series of

questions pertaining to the purchase of the three designated products.

A series of questions dealing with personal data of the customer was

also asked. Non-buyers of the three designated products were also

interviewed. They were selected at random at a designated spot in the

store. The only requirement was that they must have shopped at the

produce department. Shoppers who bought anyone of the three products

were interviewed. The shoppers were classified into the following

groups: 1) Buyers of navel oranges; 2) Buyers of turnips; 3) Buyers of

bell peppers; and 4) Non-buyers of these three products. (The study

revealed that there were only a few buyers who bought a combination of

these items.) Hence, there were four classifications and each contained

five interviews daily. This meant that a week's survey yielded 140

interviews. This scheme was followed for four weeks. Thus 560

interviews were obtained. The fifth week 140 interviews were obtained

in an experiment dealing with bell peppers only. Consequently, 700

interviews were obtained.

TEST SCHEDULE

Test Period Price Display Space

1st week (Control)Navel Oranges 30¢/lb. 54"Turnips 19¢/lb. 19"Bell Peppers 59¢/lb. 19"

2nd weekNavel Oranges 3 1bs. for 89¢ 54"Turnips 2 1bs. for 39¢ 19"Bell Peppers 4 pes. for 59¢ 19"

3rd weekNavel Oranges 30¢/lb. 86"Turnips 19¢/lb. 24"Bell Peppers 59¢/lb. 24"

4th weekNavel Oranges 3 1bs. for 89¢ f?5"Turnips 2 1bs. for 39¢ 24"Bell Peppers 4 pes. for 59¢ 24"

5th weekBell Peppers 12¢ apiece 15"Bell Peppers 49¢/lb. 15"

11

12

During the first week the norms of sales and volume movements of

navel oranges, turnips, and bell peppers were determined. During the

following weeks variables were changed. It was therefore assumed that

additional sales and volume increases were a result of these variables.

The data gathered during the test period shows the various effects that

multiple pricing and increased display space had on sales and volume

movements of a demand, semi-demand, and low-demand item.

The statistical test, analysis of variance, was used to determine

if weekly volume movements were significantly different. The chi-square

test was used to see if the number of unplanned and planned purchases

of the three selected produce items in the test week was significantly

different from the control week.

The results of the questionnaire were analyzed to give additional

information to help explain the effects of the test variables on sales

of a demand, semi-demand and low demand item.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

It was important to understand the other factors involved in the

study before undertaking the actual experiment. Thus, information on the

general background of Hawaii's population, the test store environment and

the test store itself was obtained. A clear understanding of the

existing situation contributes to a better understanding of this study's

findings.

GENERAL BACKGROUND OF HAWAII'S POPULATION

The unique characteristics and location of Hawaii probably affect

consumer behavior and thus might influence the results of this study.

It was necessary to look at some of the differences which set Hawaii

apart from other states. By observing some statewide characteristics of

income and age of the population some guidelines were developed which

were used to make judgment as to whether or not the characteristics of

shoppers interviewed were representative of Hawaii's general population.

One difference from most other states is that in Hawaii there are

many ethnic groups. Figure 1 shows the percentage distribution of

Hawaii's population by ethnic origin, from 1946 to 1965. One can

readily observe that the greatest increase of population in the last

eight years has been among the Caucasians. The percentage of Japanese

has declined slightly over the same number of years. In 1965 Caucasians

accounted for 37 percent of the total population while Japanese

accounted for 29 percent of the total. The remaining population consists

---- - - ---.-.

----

........ - ---.......

Hawaiian &Part Hawaiian

-

.............

-----Japanese

Filipino

-------

--

Caucasian

/---.........

/

20

30

40

~CJJ.l(\l~ ,---- ......

.--..--------. -. -- -.---._._.-._- ·-·-e----- ~ .._........----.......10

/0-0 - 0 0 _0-0-0 _ 0 / Chinese 0_ _o ----0""---0-0

Others

196519601955Year

1950i I I I I i I I I I01) iii Iii iii.

1946

FIGURE 1. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION OF HAWAII BY ETHNIC ORIGIN, 1946-1965

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census of Population, 1960, Hawaii, General PopulationCharacteristics, Washington, D. C.

I-'~

15

of 6 percent Chinese, 10 percent Filipino, 15 percent Hawaiian and

part-Hawaiian and 3 percent others.

The population in Hawaii is unique in both numerical size and growth

rate of different etllnic groups.

The age distribution of the population and the income distribution

provided information pertinent to this study. Figure 2 shows the age

composition of the population of Hawaii between 1900 and 1960; it also

shows that the population of Hawaii tends to be on the young side.

Figure 3 shows the rising per capita income in the United States and

Hawaii from 1948 to 1965. Between 1959 and 1965 the per capita income

in Hawaii exceeded that of the U. S. Mainland.

Figure 4 shows the income distribution in the State of Hawaii from

1946 to 1965. It is interesting to note the increasing percentage of

the population at the higher levels of income.

The greatest part of the state population is centered on Oahu where

there are approximately 386 retail grocery stores, according to the

University of Hawaii Extension Service. The major supermarkets which

engage in food retailing are:

1. Foodland Super Market, Ltd. (16)

2. Times Super Market, Ltd. (7)

3. Star Super Market (4)

4. Safeway Stores, Inc. (4) - National chain

5. P & P Super Foods (2)

6. Chun Hoon Super Market (2)

7. Holiday Mart (2)

8. GEM (2)

60

50

40

30

20

10

16

24 years and under

25 to 34 years

-- ..........- ...........~............ --

~ _.-.-., ~ ------.--

35 to 44 years

1900 1910 1920 1930Years

1940 1950 1960

FIGURE 2. AGE COMPOSITION OF POPULATION OF HAWAII BETWEEN 1900 AND 1960

Source: Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development.

$3000

./,/

",Hawaii ".",

"-"-",/$2500 -___ _ u.s.

I U$2000 ~ _-

.scd+Jo.-fg-

O

~ ~1500..........------

$1000

1948 9 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Years

8 9 60 1 2 3 4 1965

FIGURE 3. PER CAPITA INCOME FOR HAWAII AND U. S"o BETWEEN 1948 AND 1965

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business.~....,

60

---.... 0-/--o~ -.......

.."....-- -.._......._ - - -$i5':000-$99,999

~-- -o_ _0 _ .-.-' """"---- 0 0 _ 0 --~--- -' ~

$3,000-$4,999

$10,000-$14,999

_0

Under $1,000

·v·\0---·'0$1,000-$2,000 ~~

jt\ ~~o

, \/~--- --------...."'-'-~ "------..

-- ...---.. - - ...... -- -- - - - - - -----oJ): -; - iii : i :: iii iii iii iii

1946 1950 1955 1960 1965Year

10

20

50

40

~

I::~ 30$.IQ)~

Source:

FIGURE 4. INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN THE STATE OF HAWAII: 1946-1965....a) U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, Washington, D.C. co

b) Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, The State of Hawaii Data Book, Honolulu,1967.

19

9. Big Way (2)

10. IGA Stores (10) This is made up of ten independent stores.

The number of stores in each chain is in parentheses.

TEST STORE ENVIRONMENT

The following map shows the location of the test store -- the shaded

triangle -- with three concentric circles drawn around it. The smallest

circle encompasses the area and population that is within a one-mile

radius of the test store; the population within this area is estimated at

47,220. 1 The next largest circle encompasses the area and population

within a two-mile radius of the test store; the population within this

area is estimated to be around 142,200. 2 The largest circle encompasses

all the area and population within a three-mile radius of the test

store. This is the fringe area with respect to the drawing power of

the test store.

Within the one-mile radius of the test store there are five food

stores of similar size. Along with these are a number of smaller,

family-run food stores. The competition becomes greater as we consider

all the stores within a two-mile radius of the test store. Within the

three-mile radius, competition would come from competing food stores and

also from a member of the test store chain.

1Estimated Civilian Population and Dwelling Units in Oahu CensusTracts, Hawaii State Department of Health (July 1,1967),5-7.

FIGURE 5. MAP OF CENTRAL HONOLULU

No

21

The test store has a total selling area of approximately 13,800

square feet. (This includes the liquor department.) All departments

within the store are operated on the principle of self-service with the

exception of the fresh fish section. The meat department affords the

customer the option of ordering special cuts. The store also gives

trading stamps as part of its services.

TABLE I. HOURS OF THE TEST STORE

Sunday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM

Monday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM

Tuesday 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM

Wednesday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM

Thursday 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM

Friday 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM

Saturday 9:00 AM to 7:30 PM

A layout of the test store follows. The location of the navel orange,

turnip, and bell pepper displays are also shown. The displays were

placed in their usual locations. The shoppers in their normal shopping

patterns had the opportunity to see each display once. The displays

were made to look as normal as possible; or in other words, similar to

the store's usual displays. Problems would arise if the displays were

"featured" or if they were end displays, or multiple exposures. The

factors influencing the shopper would no longer be multiple pricing and

Soda i Beverage iPackaged: Meats:

~ I Produce f ~ IBell Peppers Turnips t::::l

I rroduc~ I I profuce U __@ ~Navel

Oranges

MilkButterE

t:j

Iiipo

I II II 1 9 en

(1) t"4r't

I0 .... 0

I; ..0Ii

c::(1)

0 t:j

r'tIi I'i

en g

CJr't

I I

CJ .t::::l

(&)0

I0

IIi

rozenPies

Tea-Coffee

Home ! Cleaners

krozen Jnicl Produce : Ice Cream ~

U iT:;~::::r;~o~s 0

U ; Canned GOOf Soap D

U ?reakfast fofdS DBread Candy

11=;:*1: JJi ce canneJ ~~~~~e~UiCJ]

IMacaro:~g: Food : Rice a

Frozen : Poul lory

Frozen.

Me ~tsI

Icatsup! tSoy sau~Salad Dressing

I Soup h i Sugar aaby Food

ICanned {Meat & FIShJams ~

s:.lPlUr'tlD

FIGURE 6. LAYOUT OF THE TEST STORENN

23

increased display space and it would be difficult to isolate the effects

of these variables from others that arise in these situations.

An account of the store's promotional and merchandising activities

was recorded daily for the purpose of identifying any deviation from the

normal functioning of the store. These included advertised specials and

any interesting or unusual events of the store that could affect the

outcome of the research.

Figure 7 shows the index of daily total receipts for the duration

of the five week study. There does not appear to be any dras tic change

from week to week.

Figure 8 shows the index of daily customer count for the length of

the experiment. The week-to-week changes were rather uniform.

Figure 9 shows the index of daily total produce sales. Again the

week-to-week changes were small.

These three figures show that the chosen time period of the study

at the test store was fairly typical of the store's normal activities.

Within the normal range of drawing power of this store there are

many different types of residential areas, including apartment houses,

and low and high income single-family dwellings, and the store is quite

accessible to commuter traffic. Hence it is judged to cater to a broad

cross-section of food shoppers in Honolulu. From the number of retail

grocery stores in the near vicinity, it would appear to be subjected to

strong competition. By and large, the store seemed well suited for use

as the tes t store.

M

~ 100 J.I----I--+----F---\----,r--~:__-_t~r_-,'---.s

SMTWTFSSMTW TFSSMTWTFS SMTW TFSSMT WTFS

FIGURE 7. INDEX OF DAILY SALES RECEIPTS OF TEST STORE FORTHE DURATION OF THE EXPERIMENT

Source: Daily Records of Test Store.

24

M~ 100 H-----J~_+---~~--__J.-_\_--I__\_--.J_-.s

SM TWTFS SMTWTFS SM TWTFSSMT WTFSSMTWTFS

FIGURE 8. INDEX OF DAILY CUSTOMER COUNT OF TEST STORE FORTHE DURATION OF THE EXPERIMENT

Source: Daily Records of Test Store.

25

CHAPTER IV

SHOPPER cr~CTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR

This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part deals with

the characteristics of the interviewed shoppers to see if they were

representative of Hawaii. Also, the results were compared to mainland

studies whenever possible to determine the similarities if any existed.

The second part deals with the shopping patterns exhibited by the

interviewed shoppers. Again, the results were compared to mainland

studies whenever possible. The reason for comparison was to see how

similar shopping patterns on the Mainland are to Hawaii and thus, how

valid past and future Mainland studies are for the State of Hawaii.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SHOPPERS

Ethnic Classifications:

The ethnic classifications of the seven hundred shoppers

interviewed appeared to be fairly consistent with the general make-up

of the statewide population. In this study it was found that most

shoppers were either Japanese or Caucasian. They numbered 341 and 265

respectively. The combination of these two classifications resulted in

86.6 percent of the 700 shoppers interviewed. Other ethnic groups,

however, are somewhat under-represented. The breakdown is shown in

Table II.

TABLE II. ETHNIC CLASSIFICATIONS

Number Percentage

Japanese 341 48.7

Caucasian 265 37.9

Chinese 36 5.1

Filipino 18 2.6

Hawaiian 8 1.1

Korean 6 .9

Portugese 5 .7

Other 21 3.0

The age classification of shoppers interviewed revealed that

nearly five out of ten shoppers were in the age group of 20-34 years

old. The average age of the 700 shoppers was 37.2 years. Mainland

studies show that over half the shoppers are between 30 and 49 years

of age. 1 The percentage of shoppers interviewed in each age

classification is as follows:

l"The Family Shopper," E. 1. DuPont DeNemours and Co., The 7thDuPont Consumer Buying Study (1964), p. 1.

28

29

TABLE III. AGE OF SHOPPERS

Percent

Under 20 years 1.9

20-34 years old 48.0



Over 65 years 4.1

The average household income of the shoppers interviewed was

$11,338 with a standard deviation of $2,599.50. The average household

income would have been higher except for the low student incomes. Table

IV shows the percentage of shoppers in eaCh household income level.

TABLE IV. HOUSEHOLD INCOMES OF ALL SHOPPERS

PercentageHousehold Incomes of Shoppers

$4,000 or under 12.3

$4,000 to $6,999 6.1

$7,000 to $9,999 19.6

$10,000 to $12,999 28.7

$13,000 to $15,999 15.0

$16,000 to $19,999 6.4

$20,000 and over 11.9

225

200

175

(/)'t:l 150...-I0

-m(/) 125::l0=

4-1 1000

I-lQl 75

~50

25

I • .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or more

FIGURE 10. MEMBERS IN A HOUSEHOLD

30

31

One reason for higher household incomes in Hawaii than on the

Mainland is that there are more full-time employed members in the

household. The Mainland findings show that over half of the families

have yearly incomes of more than $5,000 and approximately one out of

four families have incomes in excess of $7,500. 2 Family incomes have

risen nationally since this study was published in 1964.

In the classification of members in a household, the interviews of

shoppers disclosed that there was an average of 3.17 persons per house-

hold. Figure 10 shows the number of households and the members in a

household.

The percentages of shoppers in each classification of numbers of

members in a household are shown in Table V.

TABLE V. PERCENTAGE OF SHOPPERS AND MEMBERS IN A HOUSEHOLD

Members in a PercentageHousehold of Shoppers

One 7.7

Two 25.7

Three 31.3

Four 19.5

Five 12.0

Six :.9

Seven 1.0

Eight .3

Nine or more .1

ZIIThe Family Shopper, II .2£.• .ill., p. 1.

32

Mainland studies reveal that more than half of the shoppers buy for

three persons or less. On the other hand t only one-fourth shop for

households of five or more. 3 Table V shows that more than half of the

shoppers interviewed shop for three or less. Only 16.3 percent shop for

households of five or more. Thus t sizes of households in Hawaii and on

the Mainland are quite similar.

The educational level of the shoppers interviewed showed that on

the average they have had at least one year of college. This was higher

than it would normally be 'because of a significant number of college

students interviewed. The percentages were as follows:

TABLE VI. EDUCATION LEVEL OF SHOPPERS

Percent

1-7 years

Finished grade school

1-3 years high scheol

Finished high school

1-3 years college

Finished college

Beyond ccl1ege

3 11The Family Shopper t II .2E.. cit. t p. 1.

3.5

4.3

3.6

39.8

20.4

16.4

12.0

33

The percentages of all shoppers interviewed by occupation were as

follows:

TABLE VII. OCCUPATION OF SHOPPERS

Percent

Housewives 36.4

Professional 16.9

Self-employed 1.7

Skilled 4.9

Semi-skilled 3.0

Clerical 11.1

Service 11.3

Student 9.6

Other 5.1

This tabulation of the occupations of the shoppers interviewed

discloses that more than one-third were housewives. A total of 606

women were interviewed, 281 of whom were not gainfully employed. This

meant that 53.6 percent or slightly better than five out of ten women

interviewed worked at a full time job.

Mainland studies show that three in ten female family shoppers are

employed. 4 Thus, with a larger percentage of women working in Hawaii,

4"The Family Shopper," .QP.. cit., p. 1.

34

ease of shopping, time, and convenience are of great importance to them.

These characteristics of Island shoppers showed the differences

between the Island and Mainland shopper. The results were not surprising

because of the more varied ethnic groups and the fact that there are

more women shoppers gainfully employed in Hawaii.

SHOPPING PATTERNS

Some interesting results dealing with shopping behavior were

obtained from the responses of the 700 interviewed shoppers. Some

implications were drawn when the findings were compared to Mainland

findings.

Table VIII indicates the family member who does the shopping among

those interviewed. About 58 percent of the customers interviewed

shopped alone. About fourteen percent of the shoppers were accompanied

by spouses who assumed a passive role in shopping, and 16.3 percent of

the shoppers were accompanied by children. Eighty-six percent of the

shoppers interviewed were women.

Table IX compares Mainland and Hawaii findings on the question,

"Who Does the Family Shopping?" The shopping pattems in Hawaii tend

to be consistent with Mainland findings.

TABLE VIII. WHO DOES THE FAMILY SHOPPING?

Men Women Total

Alone 76 323 403

With Spouse 9 92 101

With Parent 2 16 18

With Relatives 1 16 17

With Friends 1 46 47

With Children 5 109 114

TABLE IX. WHO DOES THE FAMILY SHOPPING?MAINLAND AND HAWAII COMPARISON

Main1anda Hawaii

PercentWoman Alone 54.7 46.1

Woman with Chi1d(ren) 15.2 15.6

Man Alone 10.5 10.9

Woman and Man 8.6 14.4

Other Combinations 11.0 13.0

a"'rhe Family Shopper," .22.' cit., p. 2.

35

36

TABLE X. TYPES OF SHOPPING LIST

With shopping list

With mental list

No list

Men

10.3

1.4

1.7

Women

Percent

60.9

22.0

3.7

Total

71.2

23.4

5.4

From Table X it can be seen that 498 or 71.2 percent of all shoppers

interviewed had a written shopping list. On the other hand, 164 or 23.4

percent of the shoppers had no written shopping list but did have a

mental list. Lastly, 30 or 5.4 percent of the interviewed shoppers had

neither a written nor a mental shopping list; thus, all their purChases

were influenced by in-the-store decisions.

The shopping pattern in Hawaii with regard to a shopping list

showed a remarkable deviation from that on the Mainland. In fact, it

was almost a complete turn-about. The pattern exhibited on the Mainland

showed that most shoppers there carried no shopping list. The shoppers

tended to respond to in-the-store stimuli for suggestions for their

purchases. 5 The fact that Hawaii has a high percentage of members who

are employed full time suggests the following rationale. Free time is

scarce; therefore, in order to make best use of the limited amount of

5"The Family Shopper," .Q£.. .ill., p. 2.

37

time for family shopping, lists are more frequently used. Higher food

costs in Hawaii may also influence the shopper to prepare a written

shopping list based on a limited budget.

TABLE XI. HOW OFTEN DOES THE SHOPPERVISIT THE SUPERMARKET?

Mainlanda Hawaii

Percent

Once a week 26.9 30.1

Twice a week 25.3 33.3

Three times per week 22.1 15.5

Four times per week 9.8 7.1

Five times per week 15.9 4.0

a"The Family Shopper," .2E.. cit., p. 2.

Mainland studies revealed that the consumers average 2.7 shopping

trips per week. The shopper in Hawaii averages about 2.2 trips. A

comparison between Hawaii and the Mainland is shown in Table XI. The

comparison shows that the Mainland shopper visited the supermarket more

frequently than her counterpart in Hawaii. As noted earlier, about 3

out of 10 female family shoppers are employed on the Mainland compared

with 5 out of 10 female family shoppers in Hawaii. Time is important to

the working female family shopper and since Hawaii has a greater

percentage of working women it would seem logical that fewer shopping

38

trips per customer would result.

Table XII shows that the trend is toward an increasing number of

shopping trips per week, but this is only true up to four or five times

a week. It is very likely that Hawaii has the same type of trend.

TABLE XII. PERCENTAGE OF SUPERMARKET SHOPPERSSHOPPING SPECIFIED NUMBERS OF TIMES PER WEEKa

1954 1961 1963 1965

Percent

Once a week or less 62 59 55 48

Twice a week 18 23 24 26

Three times a week 10 12 13 16

Four times a week 4 4 6 7

Five or more times a week 6 2 2 3

aSchapker, .2E.' cit., p. 47.

Table XIII presents the percentages of shoppers in the sample who

conducted their major shopping trips in the various days of the week.

It shows that major shopping days for most customers are at the end

of the week.

39

TABLE XIII. MAJOR SHOPPING DAYS

Percent

Sunday 13.3

Monday 11.4

Tuesday 10.9

Wednesday 11.2

Thursday 15.3

Friday 17.5

Saturday 20.3

The findings here are consistent with the following items

previously mentioned:

1. The index of daily total receipts for the store.

2. The index of daily total customer count for the store.

3. The index of daily total produce sales.

These three indices were illustrated in Figures 7, 8, and 9,

respectively.

The average number of stores shopped per week is 2.16 with a

standard deviation of .92. The percentage of shoppers and the number

of stores they frequent per week is shown in Table XIV. Mainland studies

show that 61 percent of the shoppers frequent more than one store per

week. 6 An even larger percentage does so in Hawaii.

6 "The Family Shopper," .2E.. cit., p. 3.

TABLE XIV. NUMBER OF STORES FREQUENTED PER WEEK

Percent

40

One store/week

Two stores/week

Three stores/week

Four stores/week

Five or more stores/week

25.7

42.8

23.6

5.6

2.3

41

TABLE xv. PERCENTAGE OF SUPERMARKET SHOPPERSPATRONIZING MORE THAN ONE STORE PER WEEKa

1954 1961 1963 1965

One Supermarket Exclusively

More than one Supermarket

41

59

Percent

29

71

25

75

17

83

aschapker , E,E.. cit., p. 47.

Table XV shows an increasing trend toward patronizing more than one

store. The change is quite noticeable ~n the eleven-year period from

1954 to 1965. In 1954, 41 percent shopped at one supermarket

exclusively while 59 percent shopped at more than one supermarket. In

1965 the percentage of single store shoppers declined from 41 percent to

17 percent and that of multiple store shoppers increased from 59 percent

to 83 percent.

A reason for this result is increasing competition in the food

retail industry. Store loyalty has weakened as the competitive struggle

for sales has become stronger. Thus, it is becoming increasingly

difficult to achieve a distinctive store personality.

The survey of shoppers in Hawaii revealed that the average distance

traveled from home to the supermarket was 1.26 miles with a standard

deviation of 1.18 miles. From Table XVI it is noted that more than half

of the shoppers traveled less than one mile for their shopping needs.

42

TABLE XVI. DISTANCE TRAVELED TO THE SUPERMARKET

Percent

1 mile or less 61.4

Between 1 and 2 miles 16.7




5 miles or more 1. 75

Reasons shoppers gave for patronizing the test market are shown in

the following table. Convenience brought responses from more than

one-half of the respondents. "More specials" accounted for 29.1 percent

of all responses. An interesting reason was "know where everything is,"

and this was the response of 4.7 percent of the shoppers.

Shoppers who had budgets amounted to 344 out of the 700 interviewed,

but only 48.8 percent of this group responded that they usually stayed

within the budget. Shoppers who responded to the positive effect of

promotion or specials amount to 68.4 percent. In light of this, it

appears that it is possible to influence the shopper to buy more through

different selling and merchandising techniques.

43

TABLE XVII. REASONS FOR PATRONIZING THE TEST STORE

Percent

Convenient

Near

On the way

Quality

Service

More Specials

Low prices

Friends

Know where everything is

Other

57.4

29.1

7.4

7.9

3.4

29.5

11.6

6.0

4.7

3.0

(Note: Total percentages exceed 100 percent.)

The average number of grocery ads read per week by Island shoppers was

2.5. Table XVIII shows that 71.3 percent of all shoppers interviewed

read at least one food ad per week. It is interesting to note that the

two largest groups were 28.7 percent who read no food ads per week and

30.4 percent who read five or more food ads per week. Mainland studies

show that 32.2 percent of the shoppers check newspaper ads before

shopping. 7 The much higher use of ads by shoppers in Hawaii may be

attributed to the higher food prices and the higher percentage of

full-time employed family shoppers.

7"The Family Shopper," .2£.. cit., p. 3.

44

TABLE XVIII. NUMBER OF GROCERY ADS READ PER WEEK

Percent

0 ads read per week 28.7

1 ad read per week 12.0




5 or more ads read per week 30.4

TABLE XIX. NUMBER OF SUPERMARKET ADVERTISEMENTSREAD PER AD-READING SHOPPERa

1954

1.7

1961

2.4

1963

2.6

1965

2.8

aSchapker, .2£.. cit., p. 47.

Mainland shoppers read 2.8 ads per week, while Island shoppers

read 2.5 ads or .3 less than their counterparts on the Mainland. It is

interesting to note that the trend is toward an increasing number of ads

read by the ad-reading shopper. Note that in this study the 700 Island

shoppers included shoppers who read no ads. The Island average would

have been higher if only the figures from the ad-reading Island shoppers

were averaged.

45

The shoppers in Hawaii responded negatively to the question, "no

trading stamps cause you to buy more?" The results are indicated in

Table XX whiCh shows the percentage of shoppers for each classification.

TABLE XX. "DO TRADING STAMPS CAUSE YOU TO BUY MORE?"

Yes

10.2

No

Percent

88.6

Indifferent

1.1

In summary the findings in this chapter revealed that the Island

shopper was basically the same as her counterpart on the Mainland.

Answers given to the following questions showed similarities between

shopper in Hawaii and on the Mainland: 1) Who does the family

shopping? 2) How many marketing trips are taken per week? 3) How

many stores are frequented per week? 4) How many food ads are read per

week?

Some findings that.showed a marked deviation from Mainland results

were: 1) A greater number of Island shoppers used a written shopping

list; 2) More women shoppers were fully employed; 3) Household incomes

of Island shoppers were higher than on the Mainland; and 4) Island

shoppers come from more varied ethnic groups. Aside from these few

deviations Island shoppers are very similar to their counterparts on the

Mainland.

46

Questions asked of the consumers were directly related to factors

leading to impulse buying. For example:

1. Determining the number of stores frequented per week is an

indication of how much competition is involved, thus knowing

how effective in-store techniques are in inducing impulse

buying in that particular store.

2. Determining whether a shopper has a shopping list indicates how

strongly in-store techniques can contribute to or alter a

shopping list.

3. Determining numbers of food ads read shows how effective food

ads are in drawing a customer in and making up his list.

4. Determining how many shopping trips are made per week shows the

need for better in-store stimuli to persuade the shopper to buy

more.

5. Determining who does the family shopping helps to determine if,

for example, two persons shopping together do more impulsive

buying than one person shopping alone.

In the next chapter, some of these characteristics of shoppers that

are relevant to unplanned purchases will be discussed in more detail.

CHAPTER V

THE IMPACT OF MULTIPLE PRICING AND INCREASED DISPLAY SPACEON SALES OF SELECTED PRODUCE ITEMS

This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part evaluates

the effectiveness of the marketing techniques studied by using the

analysis of variance test on the sales in the control week and in the

week in question for each of the three products. The second part of the

chapter examines the differences in the percentages of purchases that

are unplanned between the test weeks and the control week for each of

the three items. The third part discusses the fifth week experiment

where two different sales methods for bell peppers were employed.

Table XXI shows the test schedule used for the three selected

products. The variables, multiple pricing and increased display space,

were varied for three selected items from week to week in the following

manner:

1st week (control: Normal price and normal display space

2nd week: Multiple pricing and normal display space

3rd week: Normal pricing and increased display space

4th week: Multiple pricing and increased display space

This schedule resulted in a balanced experiment with two variables.

During the fifth week bell peppers were sold on a per-pound basis

versus a unit-cost basis. This meant that there were two displays of

bell peppers. One display sold bell peppers at 49¢ per pound. The

other display sold pre-sized bell peppers at 12¢ each. (The l2¢ each

bell pepper was identified with a small white sticker.) The two prices

were essentially equivalent.

TABLE XXI. TEST SCHEDULE

48

Test Period Price Display Space

1st week (Control)

Navel Oranges 30¢/lb. 54"Turnips 19¢/lb. 19"Bell Peppers 59¢/lb. 19"

2nd week

Navel Oranges 3 lbs. for 89¢ 54"Turnips 2 lbs. for 39¢ 19"Bell Peppers 4 pes. for 59¢ 19"

3rd week

Navel Oranges 30¢/lb. 86"Turnips 19¢/lb. 24"Bell Peppers 59¢/lb. 24"

4th week

Navel Oranges 3 lbs. for 89¢ 86"Turnips 2 lbs. for 39¢ 24"Bell Peppers 4 pes. for 59¢ 24"

5th week

Bell Peppers -.12¢ apiece 15"Bell Peppers 49¢/lb. 15"

49

The volume movement of the three selected produce items was recorded

daily. The produce manager was responsible for compiling the daily

totals of the volume movements of navel oranges, turnips and bell peppers

for the duration of the five-week experiment.

The volume movements of navel oranges, turnips, and bell peppers are

shown graphically in Figures 11, 12, and 13 respectively. Figure 14

shows the volume movement of the fifth week experiment of bell peppers

selling at a per-pound basis versus a unit-cost basis. During the

period of the study there was no discernible change in quality or

availability of any of the three produce items.

The technique, analysis of variance, is a useful tool because the

total variation of the variable being studied can be separated into

components that are of interest to the experimenter. In this study the

researcher was interested in the effects of two marketing practices,

namely multiple pricing and increased display space, on sales of three

selected produce items. Four analysis of variance tables were drawn up

for each of the selected produce items. One analysis of variance table

includes all of the weeks. The remaining three analysis of variance

tables consist of comparing weeks two, three and four with week one, the

control week.

The term "analysis of variance" refers to a general method of

statistical inference. It consists of a body of tests of hypotheses and

methods of estimation, using statistics which are linear combinations of

sums of squares of linear functions of the observed values. The total

variability in a set of observations can be partitioned to determine the

relative amount of variations attributable to the various sources. The

TABLE XXII. DAILY VOLUME MOVEMENTS (IN LBS.) OF NAVEL ORANGES, TURNIPS,AND BELL PEPPERS FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXPERIMENT

S M T W T F S WEEKLY

Control weekNavel Oranges 210 20 70 175 140 105 140 860Turnips 30 25 35 62 40 20 90 302Bell Peppers 30 15 25 15 25 20 40 170

2nd weekNavel Oranges 80 90 100 210 105 210 175 970Turnips 25 20 50 68 40 59 80 342Bell Peppers 45 25 30 20 30 40 32 222

3rd weekNavel Oranges 175 140 210 140 105 175 140 1085Turnips 30 62 30 50 25 75 40 312Bell Peppers 25 55 45 21 35 35 40 256

4th weekNavel Oranges 140 175 105 140 120 140 175 995Turnips 35 45 50 30 50 55 70 335Bell Peppers 30 30 45 30 30 30 45 240

5th weekBell Peppers (12¢ apiece) 20 20 30 30 20 20 30 170Bell Peppers (49¢/lb.) 10 10 15 15 10 15 25 100

VIo

(Lbs.250

200

CD

~ 150as

tJ)

Il-loQl

~r-l~ 100

50

SMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFS SMTWTF S(Days)

FIGURE 11. POUNDS OF NAVEL ORANGES SOLD DAILY FOR DURATION OF EXPERIMENT lJ1....

(Lbs100

75

IIIQl

.-lCIStil

'H0 50

~.-l0:>

25

S M T W T F SSM T W T F SSM T W T . F-SSM T W T F(Days)

FIGURE 12. POUNDS OF TURNIPS SOLD FOR DURATION OF EXPERIMENT

V1N

(Lbs. )60

45tllQ)

.....a3en~

o

]30~

15

SM TWTFS SMT WTF S SMTWTF SSM TWTFS(Days)

FIGURE 13. POUNDS OF BELL PEPPERS SOLD FOR DURATION OF EXPERIMENT \.IIUJ

Priced per Lb.

Priced per unit

P49

P12

10

25

(Lbs. )30

§.-I~ 15

rt.l

~ 20~

tr.l

\4-1o

Su I I iii I •

S M T w T F S(Days)

FIGURE 14. COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF SELLING BELL PEPPERS V1~

55

F-test is the mechanism for testing the s.ignificance of the differences

among sample means.

For a two-way classification, with one observation per cell, a

sample of N values of X, the variate, can be classified according to

some factor A into m classes; and according to some factor B into n

classes; (thus N = mn). The sample variate value in the i th A-class and

jth B-c1ass would be Xij. Consequently:

m nE E (Xij - x.. )2 =

i=l j=l

m _ _ 2 n 2E n(xi. - x •• ) + E m(x.j - x.. ) +

i=l j=l

m n- - 2E E (XiJ" - xi. - X. J" x •• )

i=l j=l

The left hand member of this equation is the total sum of squared

deviations of the sample values of the variate from the general mean or

the total variation.

The first term on the right hand side of the equation is the sum of

the squared deviations from the general mean if all variation within the

A-classes is eliminated.

The second term is the sum of squared deviations from the general

mean if all variation within B-c1asses is eliminated.

The third term, the residual term, measures the variation in x

remaining after the variation due to that between A-classes and that

between B-c1asses has been separated out. 1

lRichard Goodman, Modern Statistics (New York, 1964), pp. 166-173.

56

In short,

Total Variation = Variation between A-Classes +

Variation between B-C1asses + Residual variation

The analysis of variance table is therefore:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TWO CRITERIAOF CLASSIFICATION (GENERAL FORM)

Source ofVariation

BetweenA-Classes

BetweenB-C1asses

Residual(A x B)

TOTAL

Sum of Squares

n- - 2E m(xi - x •• )

j=l

m nE E (xij - xi.

i=l j=l

- - )2- x. j x ••

m n- 2E E (Xij - x •• )

i=l j=l

Degreesof Freedom

m-1

n-1

(m-1)-(n-1)

mn-1

Estimate of VariancemE n(xi - i .. )2/(m-1)

i=l •

nE m(x.j - x •• ) 2/ (n-1)

j=l

m nE E (Xij - xi. - x.j

i=l j=l

x.. )2/(m-1)(n-1)

Source: Richard Goodman, Modern Statistics (New York, 1964), p. 173.

57

To test the effectiveness of the two variables, multiple pricing

and increased display space, the analysis of variance was employed to

see if weekly volume movements were significantly different. The null

hypothesis states that there is no difference between the first week,

the norm, and the week with special treatment. By using the analysis of

variance test one can readily compute the probability of the null

hypothesis, Ho ' that there is no difference.

The volume movements of the navel oranges were:

Control Week 860 pounds

2nd Week 970 pounds

3rd Week 1,085 pounds

4th Week 995 pounds

It can be seen that in the second week the F value was .53. This

meant that the difference in sales of navel oranges between test week

two and the control week was hardly significant. The difference

attributed to the test variable, multiple pricing, was small. The

change from 30¢/lb. to 3 lbs. for 89¢ did not seem great enough to

increase the sales of navel oranges significantly. The decision was to

accept the null hypothesis that there was no difference.

In the third week the F-value was 1.23. This meant that the

difference in the sales of navel oranges between test week three and the

control week was significant between .25 and .50 levels. In other words,

a difference equal to or greater than this magnitude would occur 25 to

50 percent of the time merely by chance, rather than because of the

nest variable, increased display space, being used in the third week.

It appears that increased display space was a more effective method to

TABLE XXIII. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TWO CRITERIA OFCLASSIFICATION, DAYS AND WEKKS, FOR NAVEL ORANGES

58

Source of Sum of Degree of EstimateVariations Squares Freedom of Variance F

Between all 3675.00 3 1225.00 .53C&2 864.29 1 846.29 .29

Treatments C&3 3616.07 1 3616.07 1.23(weeks) C&4 1301. 79 1 1301. 79 .49-----------------------------------Between all 13696.43 6 2282.74 .98

C&2 26692.86 6 4448.81 1.50Days C&3 13921.43 6 2320.50 .79

C&4 12825.00 6 2137.50 .81- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Residuals all 41875.00 18 2326.38

C&2 17835.71 6 2972.61C&3 17671.43 6 2945.23C&4 15810.71 6 2635.11- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -all 59246.43 27

. Total C&2 45392.86 13C&3 35208.93 13C&4 29937.50 13

302 pounds

342 pounds

312 pounds

335 pounds

59

increase the sales of navel oranges when the price per pound is as high

as thirty cents, but the increase in sales was still not highly

significant.

The fourth week essentially yielded the same result as the second

week. Again the difference in the sales of navel oranges between test

week four and the control week was hardly significant. The difference

attributed to the test variables, multiple pricing and increased

display space, was small. It appeared that, collectively, these two

variables did not increase sales of navel oranges significantly.

Note that added display space increased sales more than did added

display space plus multiple pricing. This is an interesting point

because one would expect the opposite to occur. A possible rationale

for this was the fact that shoppers became accustomed to the added

display space. Note that in the third week, navel oranges were sold at

the normal price with added display space, and on the following week,

the navel oranges were sold with multiple pricing and added display

space. The change from normal to multiple pricing was a small change

30¢/lb. to 3 lbs. for 89¢. It appears that the novelty of added display

space wore off in the fourth week. As mentioned previously, multiple

pricing in the second week did not affect the sales of navel oranges

significantly.

The volume movements of turnips exhibited a rather constant trend.

They were as follows:

Control Week

~d~~

3rd Week

4th Week

60

From Table XXIV the F-value in the second week was 8.05. This

meant that the differences in sales of turnips between test week two

and the control week was significant at the 0.05 level. The test

variable in this week was multiple pricing. A difference in the sales

of turnips equal to or greater than this magnitude would occur 5 out of

100 times merely by Chance rather than because of the test variable,

multiple pricing, being used in the second week. The price Change from

19¢ per pound to 2 pounds for 39¢ appears to be successful in increasing

the sales of turnips to a significant amount. The decision was to

reject the null hypothesis that there was no difference.

By similar reasoning, test variables in weeks three and four were

not successful in increasing the sales of turnips to a significant

amount. The test variable in week three was increased display space and

the test variables in week four were multiple pricing and increased

display space. The decisions in both cases were to accept the null

hypothesis that there was no difference.

Sales of some food products are not always responsive to Changes

in shelf space. 2 Turnips may very well be one such item. Or perhaps

the sales of turnips were not responsive to the given range of display

space.

2Keith Cox, "The Responsiveness of Food Sales to Shelf SpaceChanges in Supermarkets," Journal of Marketing ResearCh, I (May, 1964),p. 66.

TABLE XXIV. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TWO CRITERIA OFCLASSIFICATION, DAYS AND WEEKS, FOR TURNIPS

61


Between all 152.38 3 50.79 .23C&2 114.28 1 114.28 8.05

Treatments C&3 7.25 1 7.25 .01(weeks) C&4 77.79 1 77.79 .28- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between all 4209.18 6 701.53 3.11C&2 5734.00 6 955.66 67.34

Days C&3 2115.71 6 352.62 .58C&4 3086.00 6 514.33 1.90

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Residual all 4056.79 18 225.37C&2 851. 72 6 14.19C&3 3636.75 6 606.12C&4 1621. 71 6 270.68

Total allC&2C&3C&4

4868.686700.005759.714785.50

27131313

62

The volume movements of bell peppers were as follows:

Control Week 170 pounds

2nd Week 222 pounds

3rd Week 256 pounds

4th Week 240 pounds

The F-values in weeks two and three were 4.88 and 4.77. This

meant that the difference in the sales of bell peppers in test week two

and control, and test week three and control were significant at the

0.10 level. The decision in both cases was to reject the null

hypothesis that there was no difference. Or, simply stated, a

difference equal to or greater than this magnitude would occur by

chance only 10 out of 100 times. The test variables in week two and

week three were multiple pricing and increased display space

respectively. It appears that either variable is effective in

increasing the sales of bell peppers to a significant amount.

Using the same type of reasoning, the decision was to reject the

null hypothesis in week four (a = 0.25). The test variables in this

week were multiple pricing and increased display space. The results in

Table XXV show that all variables affected the sales of bell peppers

significantly. The best result was obtained when either multiple pricing

or increased display space was used alone. The use of both variables

together did not produce as significant a result as the individual use

of the variables. This may be because the novelty of increased display

space wore off in the fourth week.

TABLE xxv. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TWO CRITERIA OFCLASSIFICATION, DAYS AND WEEKS, FOR BELL PEPPERS

63


Between all 476.98 3 158.99 2.03C&2 193.86 1 193.86 4.88

Treatments C&3 528.29 1 528.29 4.77(weeks) C&4 771.43 1 171.43 3.13- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between all 336.27 6 56.07 .72

C&2 666.00 6 111.00 2.80Days C&3 610.43 6 101. 74 .92

C&4 642.86 6 107.14 1.96- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Residual all 1407.82 18 78.21

C&2 238.14 6 39.69C&3 664.71 6 110.78C&4 328.57 6 54.76

Total allC&2C&3C&4

2221.071098.001803.431142.86

27131313

64

The summary of the findings disclosed that at the given ranges of

pricing and increased display space: 1) The sales of navel oranges could

be increased by increasing the display space at the rather high cost of

30¢ per pound; 2) the sales of turnips was increased by multiple pricing;

3) the sales of bell peppers could be increased best by using each

variable individually. The summation of findings are shown in Table

XXVI.

TABLE XXVI. SIGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR NAVEL ORANGES, TURNIPS, AND BELL PEPPERS

Week Variable Navel Oranges Turnips Bell Peppers

2 Multiple Pricing Accept Ho Reject no Reject noor: = 0.05 or: = 0.10

3 Increased display Reject no Accept Ho Reject nospace or: = .25 - .50 or: = 0.10

4 Multiple pricing and Accept Ho Accept Ho Reject noIncreased display or: = 0.25space

0\\JI

66

WEEKLY PURCHASES COMPARED

The chi-square test was used to see if the number of unplanned and

planned purchases of the three selected produce items in the test week

was significantly different from the control week. The null hypothesis,

Ho ' that there is no difference, was tested.

2 x 2 Contingency Table(General Form)

ControlWeek

TestWeek

Total

UnplannedPurchases

A

C

A+C

PlannedPurchases

B

D

B+D

Total

A+B

C + D

N 2X2 = ~--=-_N~(_AD-....-_B~C_-_2~)---:-_----,

(A+b) (C + D) (A + C) (B + D)df = 1

the X2 test is the test of whether an observed breakdown offrequencies in a 2 x 2 contingency table could have occurredunder Ho .3

3Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for Behavioral Sciences,New York, 1956, p. 107.

67

Applications of the X2 test were generally nonsignificant. See the

Appendix for computations. Unplanned sales were actually lower than in

the control week in a number of instances. Evidently such increases in

volume of sales as were noted cannot be attributed to increased numbers

of unplanned purchases being induced by the test variables.

COST PER-UNIT VERSUS COST PER-POUND(TWO SALES METHODS FOR BELL PEPPERS)

In this portion of the experiment, bell peppers were displayed in

two separate displays. Some interesting results were obtained. The

two bell pepper displays were separated by a small display of packaged

carrots (approximately a one-foot display). One bell pepper display

was priced at 49¢ per pound. The other display sold uniform, pre-sized

bell peppers for l2¢ each, based on the price of 49¢ per pound.

A total of 140 customers was randomly chosen and interviewed.

It was found that approximately two-thirds of the customers

interviewed who had purchased bell peppers in the fifth week chose the

pre-sized bell peppers priced at l2¢ each. Of this group, 67 percent

thought that the bell peppers priced at l2¢ each were cheaper but of the

same quality as those priced at 49¢ per pound, while 23 percent thought

the quality was better. Five and one-half percent thought that the bell

peppers priced at l2¢ apiece were of inferior quality and were sold at

a "special price." They had erroneously assumed that at l2¢ each the

peppers were cheaper in price and inferior in quality to those priced at

49¢ per pound. Amazingly, 4.5 percent of the group that purchased the

bell peppers at the unit price of l2¢ didn't see the other display of

TABLE XXVII. REASONS GIVEN FOR BUYING BELL PEPPERSPRICED AT 12¢ APIECE

68

Reasons

Thought P12 was cheaperthan P49, but of equalquality

Thought the quality ofP12 was better

Thought P12 was a "special"(cheaper in price), but ofinferior quality to P49

Didn't see the P49 display

Number of shoppers interviewedwho bought bell peppers atl2¢ apiece

Number ofShoppers

61

21

5

4

91

Percentageof Shoppers

67

23

5.5

4.5

100

TABLE XXVIII. REASONS GIVEN FOR BUYING BELL PEPPERSPRICED AT 49¢/LB.

69

Reasons

Thought P49 was superiorin quality because P12was a "special"

Thought P49 was cheaper,but of equal quality

Thought no difference betweenP12 and P49 but needed a verysmall one

Didn't see the P12 display

Number of shoppers interviewedwho bought bell peppers at49¢/lb.

Numberof Shoppers

30

17

1

2

49

Percentageof Shoppers

61.2'

34.7

2.0

4.1

100

70

peppers priced at 49¢ per pound, that was only approximately a foot

away. Thirty-three percent of all purchases from this group were

unplanned. Ten and seven-tenths percent of the 140 persons interviewed

bought more than 'they had intended and they all bought these additional

peppers from the group priced at 12¢ each.

The remaining 35 percent of the 140 shoppers interviewed offered

similar explanations for their purchases of the bell peppers priced at

49¢ per pound. Of this group 61.2 percent had erroneously reasoned

that the quality of the peppers priced at 49¢ per pound was superior

because those priced at 12¢ each were "a special." Thirty-four and

six-tenths percent thought that the peppers priced at 49¢ were cheaper.

Again, 4 percent of the shoppers interviewed didn't see the other

display. Las t1y, there was one shopper out of the 140 interviewed who

reasoned correctly -- and bought only one pepper priced at 49¢ per

pound because he needed a very small one. On1y.6 percent of all

purchases in this group were unplanned.

It can be concluded that there was a difference between the two

methods of selling bell peppers. Selling the peppers by cost per unit

was better than selling them by the pound.

CHAPTER VI

UNPLANNED PURCHASES AND CONSUMER AWARENESS OFMERCHANDISING TECHNIQUES

This Chapter is divided into four parts. Part one discusses

unplanned purchases while part two examines consumer awareness of

merchandising teChniques. Parts three and four evaluate the reasons

for purchasing and reasons for not purchasing the three selected

produce items.

UNPLANNED PURCHASES

The effectiveness of the merchandising teChniques of multiple

pricing and increased display space can be identified with the number

of unplanned purchases the marketing techniques can induce. It is

reasonable to assume that the marketing teChnique was successful if it

could induce a significant number of unplanned purchases and thereby

generate a significant increase in the level of sales, all other

variables being held constant. The following table shows unplanned

purchases as a percentage of purChases.

Summarizing the results of the table showed that most of the

unplanned purChases of navel oranges occurred in the third week where

the test variable was increased display space. This finding was

consistent with the result of the previously discussed statistical test

of significance of weekly sales. Both concurred that increased display

space was the most effective test variable in increasing the sales of

navel oranges at these given ranges of prices and display spaces. About

72

TABLE XXIX. UNPLANNED PURCHASES AS APERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PURCHASES

Week Variable Navel Oranges Turnips Bell Peppers

Percent

Control 32.5 35.9 35.9

2 Multiple pricing 28.2 21.1 44.7

3 Increased display 35.9 16.7 38.5space

4 Multiple pricing 30.8 18.4 37.1and

increased displayspace

36 percent of all purchases of navel oranges were unplanned in this

week.

Most of the unplanned purchases of turnips occurred in the second

week, but sales were not significantly different from the control week.

About 21 percent of all purchases of turnips were unplanned in this

week. The test variable, multiple pricing, could not induce enough

unplanned purchases to make sales significantly different from the

control week. It appears that at the given ranges of multiple pricing

and increased space, neither was effective in increasing sales

significantly.

Most of the unplanned purchases of bell peppers occurred in the

second week where the test variable was multiple pricing. About 45

percent of all purchases of bell peppers were unplanned in this week.

73

This finding was consistent with the result of the previously discussed

statistical test of significance of weekly sales. Both concurred that

multiple pricing was the most effective way of increasing the sales of

bell peppers at these given ranges of prices and display spaces.

Most of the unplanned purchases of the three selected produce

items were made by shoppers whose ages ranged between 35 - 49 years old.

This finding is not too surprising because as years of marriage increase

and the family grows, the consumption of food increases and the need

for variety and quantity of food rises. Pre-planning in this age group,

35 - 49 years old, becomes more time consuming and difficult. Thus,

the result is that the shopper relies more on in-store stimuli. Also,

shoppers in this age group generally have more experience in shopping

and feel better qualified to evaluate purchase alternatives within the

store. The under 20 age group's percent of unplanned purchases were

unusually high because of the extremely small number of shoppers

interviewed belong to this age group. Table XXX summarizes unplanned

purchases as a percent of all purchases, by age group.

Most unplanned purchases of the three selected produce items made

by the shoppers were on major shopping trips as opposed to fill-in

trips. This is logical because on major shopping trips the needs of

the shoppers are many and less definite as compared to a fill-in trip

where specific items to purchase are pre-planned. Also, during a major

shopping trip a greater amount of time is spent in the store.

Consequently, the shopper would be more receptive to in-store stimuli.

Table XXXI summarizes unplanned purchases as a percent of all purchases

and the major or fill-in shopping trip.

TABLE XXX. UNPLANNED PURCHASES AS A PERCENT OFALL PURCHASES, BY AGE GROUP

74

Week Age Group Navel Oranges Turnips Bell Peppers

Percent

2 Under 20 years 33.320-34 years old 3.3 3.335-49 years old 14.6 2.1 20.150-64 years old 6.3 31.3 25.0Over 65 years 16.7 33.3

3 Under 20 years 33.320-34 years old 6.7 3.335-49 years old 16.7 13.9 18.850-64 years old 12.5 6.3 18.8Over 65 years.

4 Under 20 years 33.320-34 years old 3.3 6.735-49 years old 16.7 13.2 14.650-64 years old 6.3 12.5 12.5Over 65 years

. I

TABLE XXXI. UNPLANNED PURCHASES AS A PERCENT OF ALL PURCHASESAND THE MAJOR OR FILL-IN SHOPPING TRIP

75

Type ofWeek Shopping Trip Navel Oranges Turnips Bell Peppers

Percent2 Major 23.1 10.5 23.7

Fill-in 5.1 10.5 13.2

3 Major 20.5 11.1 25.6Fill-in 15.4 5.6 17.9

4 Major 17.9 10.5 20.0Fill-in 12.8 7.9 17.1

76

From the classifications of shoppers, women shoppers who shopped

with their children made the greatest amount of unplanned purchases.

The second largest group was the man and woman classification. The

results are plausible because the more people involved in one shopping

trip the greater the chances are of seeing more items in the store.

For example, children tend to make their mothers more aware of many

possible in-the-store decision purchases.

Table XXXII shows unplanned purchases as a percent of total

purchases by who does the family shopping.

CONSUMER AWARENESS OF APPLIED MERCHANDISING TECHNIQUES

Most studies dealing with multiple pricing or other merchandising

practices designed to increase impulse buying have assumed that because

the sales were increased, the shoppers were quite aware of the applied

practices. In this section the assumption that the shoppers were aware

of multiple pricing and increased display space as applied to navel

oranges, turnips, and bell peppers will be discussed.

The shopper was asked a series of questions dealing with this

assumption. She was asked if she had planned to purchase the item, and

if so, how much of it. Then she was asked to reveal the actual quantity

of her purchase. If an unplanned purchase occurred she was asked to

give a reason for her purchase. This question gave the shopper a wide

latitude of choices among the possible answers. At this point of the

interview, a very specific question was asked of the shopper about her

awareness of the applied marketing techniques. The shopper was asked,

"Did you notice any difference between purchasing the item this week

77

TABLE XXXII. UNPLANNED PURCHASES OR A PERCENT OF TOTAL PURCHASESBY WHO DOES THE FAMILY SHOPPING

Who Does theWeek Family Shopping Navel Oranges Turnips Bell Peppers

Percent

2 Woman alone 6.2 6.2 9.2Woman with child(ren) 13.6 27.2Man alone 6.7 6.7 13.4Woman and Man 10.0 15.0 10.0Other combinations 5.6

3 Woman alone 9.2 4.6 9.2Woman with child(ren) 22.7 22.7Man alone 6.7 6.7 6.7Woman and man 5.0 5.0 15.0Other combinations 5.6

4 Woman alone 7.7 4.6 5.0Woman with child(ren) 18.2 4.5 18.2Man alone 6.7 6.7 6.7Woman and man 5.0 5.0 15.0Other combinations 5.6 5.6

78

and last week; for example, price, display, size, etc.?" This question

was asked only after the shopper was given the freedom to s tate why she

had purchased the item. Thus the opportunity to reinforce her reason

for her purchase was afforded the customer. Indirectly the shopper was

made to reveal her awareness of merchandising techniques as applied to

her purchase.

Table XXXIII shows the schedule of the prices and the display

spaces connected with each item for the experiment. The results .of the

shoppers' awareness of merchandising techniques as applied to navel

oranges, turnips and bell peppers are shown in Table XXXIV.

In the purchase of navel oranges, 15/140 or 10.7 percent of the

shoppers indicated that they noticed some difference between the weekly

display from which they had purchased and the preceding week's display.

But only 1/140 or .7 percent gave the correct answer. Fourteen out of

140 or 10 percent gave incorrect answers.

Similarly, thirteen or 9.3 percent of the shoppers who purchased

turnips indicated that they noticed a difference in its display. Only

two or 1.4 percent gave the correct answer while eleven or 7.9 percent

gave incorrect answers as to what was different about the display.

Lastly, twenty-nine or 20.7 percent of the shoppers who purchased

bell peppers indicated that they noticed a difference in its display.

Five or 3.6 percent gave correct answers and twenty-four or 17.1 percent

gave incorrect answers.

In any given week the shoppers who gave incorrect answers had a

net cancelling effect. In other words, the number of shoppers who

thought the quality of the item was better was about equal to the number

TABLE XXXIII. TEST SCHEDULE

Week Variable Navel Oranges Turnips Bell PeppersPRICE DISPLAY PRICE DISPLAY PRICE DISPLAY

CONTROL -- 30¢/lb. 54" 19¢/lb. 19" 59¢/lb. 19"

2nd Multiple pricing 3 1bs.-89¢ 54" 2 1bs.-39¢ 19" 4 pcs.-59¢ 19"

3rd Increased display 30¢/lb. 86" 19¢/lb. 24" 59¢/lb. 24"space

4th Multiple pricing and 3 1bs.-89¢ 86" 2 1bs.-39¢ 24" 4 pcs.-59¢ 24"Increased displayspace

......\0

TABLE XXXIV. SHOPPERS' AWARENESS OF DISPLAYS

80

Navel Oranges Turnips Bell Peppers

Number or Percent

Number ofShoppers Correctly 1 or .7 2 or 1.4 5 or 3.6Who NoticedDifferences Incorrectly 14 or 10 11 or 7.9 24 or 17.1in WeeklyDisplays Total 15 or 10.7 13 or 9.3 29 or 20.7

81

of shoppers who thought the quality of the item was poorer.

It was concluded that at these ranges of prices and display spaces

for navel oranges, turnips and bell peppers, the shoppers' awareness of

price and display space changes is minimal.

REASONS FOR PURCHASES

The shopper was asked questions dealing with her purchasing

activities within the store. In this section the reasons given by the

shoppers for their purchases of selected produce items will be

discussed.

Sixty out of 140, or 42.9 percent of the shoppers who purchased

navel oranges made in-the-store decisions. Of this group 29/60 or 48.3

percent purchased navel oranges because they "remembered it" (always

buy); 20/60 or 33.3 percent of the group purchased the navel oranges

because of a change in menu.

Note that only 15/140 or 10.7 percent of all shoppers who purchased

navel oranges noticed any difference between the current display and the

preceding week's display. At best they could only indicate the

direction of change with regard to price. Usually they would indicate

that they suspected a change in price. The shoppers indicated readily

their lack of knowledge of the normal price of navel oranges. This

point is supported by a study made by Morris and Firch who indicated

the same resu1t. I The shoppers' opinions of quality differences tended

IJames L. Morris and Robert J. Firch, "The Analysis of SeparatePrice and Advertising Responses to Retail Grocery Specials," Proceedings1967 Western Farm Economics Association, XXXX (July, 1967), 47-52.

TABLE XXXV. REASONS FOR PURCHASING NAVEL ORANGES

1st Week 2nd Week 3rd Week 4th Week

Intended to Buy 27 28 25 27Any Differencefrom Last Week? (NO) 25 25 24 26

(YES) 2 Q'" 3 Pt 1 Qt 1 I::.P

4

3

5

4

5

5

2

4

5

2

6

5

Not Intendingto Buy andBought 13 11 14 12R Remembered ite (always buy it)as Bought Moreon Change in MenusAny Differencefrom Last Week? (NO)

(YES)10 10 _ ~__ ~2 10

3 Qt 1 I::.P 2 Qt 2 Qt

00N

83

to balance out in any given week. Because of the shoppers' inability

to recognize the difference between successive weekly displays, it

appeared that the carry-over effect from the preceding week was minimal.

Thirty-five out of 140 or 25 percent of all shoppers who purchased

turnips made in-the-store decisions. Of this group 17/35 or 49 percent

of the shoppers purchased turnips upon remembering it (always buy) and

10/35 or 29.6 percent of this group made purchases because of a change

in menu decision. Only 13/140 or 9.3 percent of all purchasers of

turnips indicated a recognition of a difference between the current

display and the preceding week's display.

The results were similar to the ones obtained for navel oranges.

The customers' lack of knowledge of the normal price for turnips was

demonstrated. The carry~over effect from one week to the next was

probably minimal.

Fifty-nine out of 140 or 42.1 percent of all shoppers who purchased

bell peppers made in-the-store decisions. Of this group 21/59 or 35.6

percent purchased bell peppers upon remembering it (always buy) and

22/59 or 37.3 percent of the group purchased bell peppers because of a

Change in menu decision. Only 29/140 or 20.7 percent indicated a

recognition of any difference between the current week's display and

the preceding week's display of bell peppers. Again they only

suspected something was changed. The results were similar to those

obtained for navel oranges. The lack of knowledge of the normal price

for bell peppers was revealed. Again, the carry-over effect from one

week to the next was probably minimal.

TABLE XXXVI. REASONS FOR PURCHASING TURNIPS


Intended to Buy 25 30 30 31Any Differencefrom Las t Week? (NO) 24 27 29 31

(YES) 1 Qt 3 Qt 1 Qt 0

Not Intendingto Buy andBought 14 8 6 7R Rememb ered ite (Always buy it) 9 3 3 2as Bought More 4 1 1 2an Change in Menu 1 4 2 3sAny Differencefrom Last Week? (NO) 13 6 5 3

(YES) 1 Qt 2 Qt 1 Qt 4 Qt

00.po

TABLE XXXVII. REASONS FOR PURCHASING BELL PEPPERS


Intended to Buy 25 21 24 22Any Differencefrom las t Week? (NO) 22 20 21 20

(YES) 3 Qt 1 Qt 3 Qt 2

Not Intendingto Buy andBought 14 17 15 13Re Remembered ita (Always buy it) 5 5 6 5s0 Bought More 4 3 2 7ns Change in Menu 5 7 5 5Any Differencefrom Las t Week? (NO) 9 11 12 7

(YES) 5 Qt 6 Pot 3 Qt 6 tQ

00VI

86

To summarize, increased display and price changes of the three

selected products produced different results. For bell peppers, the

two merchandising techniques proved highly effective in producing

increased sales and unplanned purchases. Navel oranges showed significant

increases, though not as substantial as bell peppers. However, it seems

that the original control display for turnips was the most successful in

inducing unplanned purchases. For all three products, although consumers

were aware of their unplanned purchase, they were not aware of the

merchandising techniques which induced it.

REASONS FOR NOT PURCHASING

As in the previous section, the shopper was asked questions that

indicated the reasons for not purchasing the selected produce items.

It is interesting to note that of the group of sixty-nine shoppers

who did not purchase navel oranges because they thought the price was

high, thirty-six of them, or slightly over half, purchases orange juice

instead. Of the sixty-six who did not purchase navel oranges because

they thought the quality was poor, about two out of three purchased

other fruits. Note also that sixty-eight shoppers did not purchase

navel oranges because other commodities influenced them to make a change

in their menu -- not because of the influence of navel oranges.

One hundred and eighty-four shoppers who did not purchase turnips

stated that they "never buy turnips." Of this group thirty-two (nearly

one out of five) were not familiar with turnips. Seventy-two shoppers

stated that they "seldom buy turnips." Only five (1.2 percent) of all

TABLE XXXVIII. REASONS FOR NOT PURCHASINGNAVEL ORANGES

Reasons Number Percentage

Never buy 21 5

Seldom buy 38 9

Price is high 69 16.5

Poor quality 66 15.8

Didn't see display 17 4.1

Have at home 70 16.7

Change in menu 68 16.2

Not on shopping list 44 10.5

Miscellaneous 26 6.2

Total 419 100

87

88

shoppers who didn't buy turnips stated that the price was high. There

appeared to be a strong dislike for the turnip as a food source among a

large segment of the population.

One hundred twenty-one shoppers stated that they "never buy bell

peppers." Another eighty-two shoppers stated that they "seldom buy

bell peppers." These two classifications constituted about 48.7 percent

of all shoppers who did not purchase bell peppers. Forty-four or 20

percent of the shoppers did not purchase bell peppers because they

thought the price was high. Fifty-seven shoppers did not purchase bell

peppers because they thought the quality was poor. The bell peppers,

like turnips, seemingly lacked the general appeal of navel oranges.

In this chapter an effort was made to discover in what areas

unplanned purchases occurred and also whether consumers were aware that

the merchandising techniques were causing them to make unplanned

purchases. The findings were:

1. The greates t amount of unplanned purchases for the three

selected products occurred in the 35-49 year old age group.

2. The greatest amount of unplanned purchases for the three

selected products occurred during major shopping trips as

opposed to fill-in trips.

3. The greatest amount of unplanned purchases among shoppers for

the three selected products occurred among women shopping with

children.

4. At the ranges of prices and display spaces for the three

selected products, the shoppers' awareness of price and display

space changes was minimal.

TABLE XXXIX. REASONS FOR NOT PURCHASING TURNIPS


Never buy 184 44

Seldom buy 72 17.2

Price is high 5 1.2

Poor quality 37 8.9






Total 418 100,

89

TABLE XL. REASONS FOR NOT PURCHASING BELL PEPPERS


Never buy 121 29

Seldom buy 82 19.7

Price is high 44 10.6

Poor quality 57 13.7






Total 417 100

90

t .".

91

Such results are useful to the retailer who is interested in knowing

what type of consumer buys a certain product, thus enabling him to choose

the proper marketing strategy -- not only to increase sales through

unplanned purchases but also to create a better store atmosphere for the

consumers' satisfaction and enjoyment of shopping.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY

Food retailing is an important segment of Hawaii's economy. The

national trend of consumer expenditures is toward an increasing number of

purchases without advance planning. The present study was based on

empirical information obtained from a group of 700 shoppers in a

representative supermarket in Honolulu, Hawaii, during a five-week test

period. It was hypothesized that consumers are aware of marketing

techniques; namely, multiple pricing and increased display space on

selected items.

The primary objectives of this study were to find the behavior

patterns of supermarket shoppers in Hawaii and their awareness of

merchandising techniques and to ascertain how multiple pricing and

increased display space influence the shopper in Hawaii to purchase

unplanned selected items among the many that are available, and to

determine the impact these merchandising practices have on sales. The

selections of the test items were based on Boyer's study and the sales

of the supermarket chain and they were representative of Hawaii. The

high demand item was navel oranges; the semi-demand item was turnips;

and the low demand item was bell peppers.

Answers gi.ven to the following questions showed similarities

between shoppers in Hawaii and on the Mainland.


2. How many marketing trips are taken per week?

3. How many stores are frequented per week?

4. How many food ads are read per week?

93

Some findings that showed a marked deviation from Mainland findings

were:

1. A greater number of Island shoppers used a written shopping

list.

2. More women shoppers were fully employed.

3. Household incomes of Island shoppers are higher than on the

Mainland.

4. Island shoppers come from more varied ethnic groups.

Aside from these few deviations, Island shoppers are very similar to

their counterparts on the Mainland.

The effectiveness of the marketing techniques, multiple pricing and

increased display space, was identified with increased sales and with

the number of unplanned purchases the marketing techniques induced. The

results with respect to unplanned purchases were:

1. The greatest number of unplanned purchases of navel oranges

occurred in the week where the test variable was increased

display space (35.9 percent of all purchases unplanned).

2. The greatest number of unplanned purchases of turnips occurred

in the week where the test variable was multiple pricing. (21.1

percent of all purchases were unplanned.)

3. The greatest number of unplanned purchases of bell peppers

occurred in the week where the test variable was multiple

pricing. (44.7 percent of all purchases were unplanned.)

There was no indication that increased display space or multiple

pricing added significantly to the number of unplanned purchases.

It was concluded that the shoppers' awareness of price and display

94

changes is minimal at the ranges of prices and display spaces for navel

oranges, turnips, and bell peppers.

The statistical test of analysis of variance was used to see if

weekly volume movements were significantly different. The findings were:

1. The sale of navel oranges could be increased by increasing the

display space even at the rather high cost of 30¢ per pound.

2. The sale of turnips was increased somewhat by multiple pricing.

3. Each of the variables, multiple pricing and increased display

space, increased the sale of bell peppers slightly.

It was also concluded that of the two sales methods for bell

peppers (cost per unit versus cost per pound), the selling of bell

peppers by the unit was definitely superior. Bell peppers are very

light in weight, so their unit cost is low in comparison to their cost

per pound. The shoppers in this store responded very favorably to unit

cost pricing of this item, though their rationalizations of their buying

decisions were for the most part erroneous.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The findings of this study suggest that further research would be

useful in answering some of the questions that were beyond the scope of

this study. For a future study, not only should these marketing

techniques be applied for different food products, but greater differences

in the ranges of display spaces and prices should also be experimented

with. The study could also be expanded on other aspects of marketing

research; for example, observing how the time of day affects unplanned

purchases.

95

Food retailing is a big business; and because of this, a

comprehensive study of Island shoppers' characteristics and shopping

patterns would be extremely beneficial -- to the retailer interested in

increased profits and better service, and to the customer interested in

ease of shopping and satisfaction in purchases.

APPENDIX

CONSUMER QUESTIONNAIRE


Alone--------Spouse;.-. _Parents, _Relatives------Friends

-~-----Child (ren) _

97

No.Date:...- _Time:...- _

2. Do store specials or promotions cause you to buy more?

Yes. _No----

3. Do you have a written shopping list?

Yes---No _ If no, Do you have a mental list?Yes, _No _

4. How often do you shop at a supermarket per week?

Once. _Twice. _

Three~----Four-----Five or more----

5. Is this a major or a filler shopping trip?

Regular _Filler _

6. How many supermarkets do you shop at per week?

One. _Two. _Three. _Four----Five or more'._---

98

7. Why do you shop at this store?

Convenient. __Near, _On the way. __Quality. _Service

~------

More specials _Low prices __Friends---------Know where everything is _Others'-----------

8. How far do you live from the store?

1 mile or less'-----1-2 miles2-3 miles·-------3-4 miles, _5 or more miles _

9. Do you have a food budget?

Yes-------No-------10. Do you usually stay within the budget?

Yes. _No _

11. How many grocery ads do you read per week?

l~ _2. _3 _4: _5 or more _

12. Do you use the ads to make a shopping list?

Yes----No-----13. Do trading stamps cause you to buy more?

Yes------No, _Indifferent __

14. Had you planned to buy oranges?

yes _No - If no, skip #15, go to #16.

99

15. If yes, how much?

lbs. or units-----.; ------16. Did you buy oranges?

Yes, _No----- If no, skip #17, go to #18.

17. If yes, how many did you buy?

____...;lbs. or units

What prompted you to purchase oranges (unplanned) or to purchaseadditional (or less) oranges after you were inside the store?

Display _Posters, sign, card~ __Price, _Qualityo:--~ _Tag, label:..- _Clerk suggestion~ _Always buy it (remembered it) _Other--------Skip #18, go to #19.

18. If no, why?

Never buy _Seldom buy _Price is high~ _Poor quality _Didn't see it'---Have at home._---Change in menu__~_Not on shopping list. _Miscellaneous---

19. Did you notice any difference between purchasing oranges this weekand last week? (for example, price, display, size, quality, etc.)

Yes ' No _

If yes, what?

P+-----; P"" _ DS+ ; DS"" Q+ Q"'__

Other _

100

20. Had you planned to buy turnips?

YesNo If no, skip 1121, go to 1122.


1bs. or units

22. Did you buy turnips?

Yes'No If no, skip 1123, go to 1124.


1bs. or units

What prompted you to purchase turnips (unplanned) or to purchaseadditional (or less) turnips after you were inside the store?

Disp1a.y _Posters, sign, card~' __Price'--------Quality~~ _Tag, 1abe1:..-~ _Clerk suggestion~ __Always buy it (remembered it) _Other--------Skip #24, go to #25.

24. If no, why?

Never buy. __Seldom buy. _Price is high __Poor Qua1ity _Didn't see it _Have at home. _Change in menu, __Not on shopping 1ist, _Miscel1aneous _

25. Did you notice any difference between purchasing turnips this weekand last week? (for example, price, display, size, quality, etc.)

Yes . No _

If yes, what?

P+ ; P-l- _ DS+ ; DS...-l- ; Q+ _ Q-l- _

101

Other' ....

26. Had you pla~ed to buy bell peppers?

YeS----No. _ If no, skip 1127, go to 1128.


_______lbs. or un.its

28. Did you buy bell peppers?

Yes, _No _ If no, skip 1129 and go to 1130.


____....;lbs. or un.its.

What prompted you to purchase bell peppers (unplanned) or topurchase additional (or less) bell peppers after you were insidethe store?

Display _Posters, sign, card, ___Price. _

Qua1ity~::__-----Tag, label~ _Clerk suggestion~__~Always buy it (remembered it) _Other--------

30. If no, why?

Never buy _Seldom buy _Price is high~ _Poor quality _Didn't see it'-----Have at home. _Change in menu~ _Not on shopping list~ _Miscellaneous _

31. Did you notice any difference between purchasing bell peppers thisweek and last week? (for example, price, display, size, quality,etc. ) Yes No' .

pt_' ; P"' _

Other, _

DSt _ DS"' ; Qt _ Q"'---

32. Sex:M~' _

33. Mar±ta1 Status

Married. _Sing1e, _Other, _

34. Age

Under 20 _20-34 _35-49 _50-64, _Over 65, _

35. Race

Caucasian~ _JapaneSe _Chinese._----Fi1ipino, _Hawaiian-------Portugese. _Korean _Other'------

36. Education

F _

102

1-7 grade schoo1~_~ _Finished grade s choo1~ _1-3 years high schoo1~ __Graduated high schoo1 _1-3 years co11ege ___Graduated co11ege~ __Beyond co11ege. _

37. Occupation

Housewife, _Professiona1 __Se1f-emp1oyed _Ski11ed~~ __Semi-ski11ed~ _C1erical __Service~ _StudentOther -------------

38. Members of the househo1d __

39. Gross household income

a. $365 or over $19,000 or overb. 307-365 16,000-18,999c. 249-307 13,000-15,999d. 192-249 10,000-12,999e. 134-192 7,000-9,999f. 77-134 4,000-6,999g. 77 or under Under 4,000

40. Number of magazines subscribed to or purchased regularly?

103

1~__; 2:.-..__; 3. ; 4, _ 5 or more:.-..__

41. Number of newspapers subscribed to or purchased regularly?

1~__; 2:.-..__ 3 or more:.-..__

42. If so, what are the names?

Honolulu Advertiser __Honolulu Star Bu11etin:.-.. _Others:.-.. _

104

APPENDIX TABLE I. AGE VS. OCCUPATIONS OFSHOPPERS INTERVIEWED

UnderOccupation 20 20-34 35-49 50-64 Over 65

Housewife 2 100 90 46 17

Professional 62 47 8 1

Self-employed 3 4 3 2

Skilled 11 20 1 2

Semi-skilled 8 7 6

Clerical 2 36 28 8 4

Service 2 48 24 4 1

Student 6 50 11

Other 1 1 10 5 2

105

APPENDIX TABLE II • ETHNIC GROUPS VS. HOUSEHOLD INCOME. ~,.

OF SHOPPERS INTERVIEWED

Ethnic Under $4000- $7000- $10,000- $13,000- $16,000- OverGroup $4000· 6999 9999 12,999 15,999 18,999 19,000

Caucasian 32 19 69 65 40 10 30

Japanese 49 6 54 124 44 24 40

Filipino 1 14 1 2

Hawaiian 1 4 3

Korean 1 4 1

Portugese 1 4

Chinese 2 2 2 5 5 10 10

Other 1 1 3 1 12 1 2

APPENDIX TABLE III. HOUSEHOLD INCOME VS. OCCUPATIONS OF SHOPPERS INTERVIEWED

Under $4000- $7000- $10,000- $13,000 $16,000 OverOccupation $4000 6999 9999 12,999 15,999 18,999 19,000

Housewife 4 30 64 79 39 10 29

Professional - 3 10 10 40 15 40

Self-employed - - 2 2 2 1 5

Skilled - - - 10 15 1 8

Semi-skilled 2 - 9 10

Clerical 10 2 17 46 3

Service 9 - 20 29 5 16

Student 60 7

Other 1 1 15 15 1 2 1

I-'o0'

107

APPENDIX TABLE IV. HOUSEHOLD INCOME VS. AGE OFSHOPPERS INTERVIEWED

Under $4000- $7000- $10,000- $13,000 $16,000 OverAge $4000 6999 9999 12,999 15,999 18,999 19,000

Under 20 10 2 1

20-34 50 20 79 125 40 7 15

35-49 6 7 50 44 54 33 47

50-64 1 6 6 32 11 5 20

Over 65 19 7 1 1 1

APPENDIX TABLE V. THE NUMBER OF SHOPPErS IN EACH HOUSEHOLDINCOME LEVEL AND THE NUMBER OF SHOPPERS WHO BOUGHT NAVEL

ORANGES, TURNIPS, OR BELL PEPPERS

Navel BellIncome Level Oranges Turnips Peppers

$19,000 or more (83) 17 17 15

16,000-18,999 (45) 7 16 15

13,000-15,999 (105) 24 23 28

10,000-12,999 (201) 48 23 31

7,000-9,999 (137) 26 24 27

4,000-6,999 (43) 12 20 8

4,000 or less (86) 6 17 26

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Navel Oranges (all) - Not significant

Navel oranges (C & 2) - Not significant

Navel oranges (C & 3) - a = (0.25 and 0.50)

Navel oranges (C & 4) - Not significant

108

THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLEFOR NAVEL ORANGES (all)

Source of Sum of Degrees EstimateVariation Square of Freedom of Variance F

BetweenTreatments 3675.00 3 1225.00 .53(week)

Betweendays 13696.43 6 2282.74 .98

Residual 41875.00 18 2326.38

Total 59246.43 27

VI = 18, we find the 5% and 1% points of F to be 3.16

and 5.09 respectively. We conclude, therefore, that

the difference between treatments and days are hardly

significant.

109

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE

C 2 3 4 Ti T.2 2J. ~j

S 4900 (70) 210 3600 (-60) 80 1225 (85) 175 (0) (0) 140 45 2025 9725

M 14400 (-129) 20 2500 (-50) 90 (0) (0) 140 1225 (35) 175 -135 18225 18125

T 4900 (-70) 70 1600 (-40) 100 4900 (70) 210 1225 (-35) 105 -75 5625 12625

W 1225 (35) 175 4900 (70) 210 (0) (0) 140 (0) 140 105 11025 6125

T (0) (0) 140 1225 (-35) 105 1225 (-35) 105 400 (-20) 120 -90 8100 2850

F 1225 (-35) 105 4900 (70) 210 1225 (35) 175 (0) (0) 140 70 4900 7350

S (0) 140 1225 (35) 175 (0) (0) 140 1225 (35) 175 70 4900 2450

Tj -120 -10 105 15 T = 10 L Ti259250i

= 54800

T2 14400 100 11025 225 r1j 2

= 25750LjLjXij2

Xij2 26650 19950 8575 4075 59250

Transfer to a new origin at 140.

............o

111

Consequently:

(i) Total sum of squared deviation t j Xij - T2

/N =

59250 - (10)2 = 59259 - 3.57 = 59246.4328

(ii) Sum of squares for treatments, j (Tj 2/nj ) - T2/N =

25750 - 3.57 = 3678.57 - 3.57 = 3675.007

(iii) Sum of squares for day E (Ti2/ni) - T2/N =i

54800 - 3.57 = 13700 - 3.57 = 13696.434

(iv) Residual sum of square = 59246.43 - 3675.00 - 13696.43 = 41875.00

112

THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR NAVEL ORANGES (C&2)

Source of Sum of Degree EstimateVariance Squares of Freedom of Value F

BetweenTreatments 864.29 1 864.29 .29(weeks)

BetweenDays 26692.86 6 4448.81 1.50

Residual 1783.71 6 2972.61

Total 45392.86 13

Not Significant


C 2 TiTi 2 X:i.j 2

S 4900 (70) 210 3600 (-60) 80 10 100 8500

M 14400 (-120) 20 2500 (-50) 90 -170 28900 16900

T 4900 (-70) 70 1600 (-40) 100 -110 12100 6500

W 1225 (35) 75 4900 (70) 210 105 11025 6125

T 0 (0) 140 1225 (-35) 145 -35 1225 1225

F 1225 (-35) 105 4900 (70) 210 35 1225 1225

S 0 (0) 140 1225 (35) 175 35 1225 1225

Ti -120 -10 T = -130 L Ti2 46600i= 55800

T2 14400 100L T;2 =

L L Xij2i J14500 i j

X:i.j 2 26650 19950 46600

Transfer to a new origin at 140.~~w

114

Consequently,

(i) Total sum of squared deviation, r j ~j2 - T2/N

= 46600 - (-130)2 = 46600 - 16900 =14 14

4660 - 1207.14 = ~5392.86

(ii) Sum of squares for treatments, j (Tj 2/Nj ) - T2/N =

14500 - 1207.14 = 2071.14 = 864.297

55800 - 1207.14 = 27900 - 1207.14 = 26692.86,2

(iv) Residual sum of squares, 45392.86 - 864.29 - 26692.86 = 17835.71

115



Source ofVariance 3616.07 1 3616.07 1.23


Residual 17671.43 6 2945.23

Total 35208.93 13


C 3 Ti T·2 xtj2. ~

S 4900 (70) 210 1225 (35) 175 105 11025 6125

M 14400 (-120) 20 0 (0) 140 -120 14400 14400

T 4900 (-70) 70 4900 (70) 210 0 0 9800

W 1225 (35) 175 0 (0) 140 35 1225 1225

T 0 (0) 140 1225 (-35) 105 -35 1225 1225

F 1225 (-35) 105 1225 (75) 175 0 0 2450

S 0 (0) 140 0 (0) 140 0 0 0

Ti -120 105 T = -15E Ti 2 = 35225

i27875

T2 14400 11025 ~ Tj2 =25425 E E xt 2

i j j

xtj2 26650 8575 35225

Transfer to new origin at 140. ........0\

117

Consequently,

(i) Total sum of squared deviati.ons, E E Xij2 -T2/N =i j

35225 - 225 = 35225 - 16.07 = 35208.9314

(ii) Total sum of squares for treatments, 1 (Tj 2/nj > -T2/N =

25425 - 16.07 = 3632.14 - 16.07 = 3616.077

27875 - 16.07 = 13937.50 = 13921.432


118



BetweenTreatments 1301.79 1 1301. 79 .49(weeks)

BetweenDays 12825.00 6 2137.50 .81

Residual

Total

15810.71

29937.50

6

13

2635.11


C 4 Ti T.2 Xij2J.

S 4900 (70) 210 0 (0) 140 70 4900 4900

M 14400 (-12) 20 1225 (35) 175 -85 7225 15625

T 4900 (-20) 20 1225 (-35) 105 -105 11025 6125

W 1225 (35) 175 0 (0) 140 35 1225 1225

T 0 (0) 140 400 (-20) 120 -20 400 400

F 1225 (-35) 105 0 (0) 140 -35 1225 1225

S 0 (0) 140 1225 (35) 175 35 1225 1225

Ti 120 15 T = -105 I: T. 230725• J.

J.= 27225

T2 14400 225I: T.2 =i J14625 I: I: Xij2

2 26650 4075 30725i j

xij

Transfer to new origin at 140.~~\0

120

Consequently,

(i) Total sum of squared deviations, r f Xij2 - T2/N =

30725 ~ (105)2 = 30725 ~11025 = 30725 - 787.50 = 29937.5014 14

(ii) Total sum of squares for treatments, 1:. (Tj 2/nj ) - T2/N =j

14625 - 787.50 = 2089.29 - 787.50 = 1301.797

"(iii) Total sum of squares for days, 1: (Ti2/ni) - T2/n =i

27225 - 787.50 = 13612.50 - 787.50 = 12815.002

(iv) Residual sum of squares = 29937.50 - 1301.79 - 12825.00 = 15810.71

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Turnips (all) - Not significant

Turnips (C & 2) - Significant at 75% = 0.25

Turnips (C & 3) - Not significant

Turnips (C & 4) - Not significant

121

122

THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TURNIPS (all)

Source of Sum of Degrees EstimateVariation Squares of Freedom of Variance F


BetweenDays 4209.18 6 701.53 3.11

Residual 4056.79 18 225.37

Total 9868.68 27

VI = 3, v2 = 18, we find the 5 percent and 1 percent points of

F to be 3.16 and 5.09 respectively. We conclude, therefore, that

the difference between treatment is hardly significant (at the

5 percent level), while that between days is almost so (almost

significant at the 5 percent level).


C 2 3 4 Tj Ti Xij2

S 0 (0) 30 25 (5) 25 0 (0) 30 25 (-5) 35 0 0 50

M 25 (5) 25 100 (10) 20 1024 (-32) 62 225 (-15) 45 -32 1024 1374

T 25 (-5) 35 400 (-20) 50 0 (0) 30 400 (-20) 50 -45 2024 825

w 1024 (-32) 62 1444 (-38) 68 400 (-20) 50 0 (0) 30 -90 8100 2868

T 100 (-10) 40 100 (-10) 40 25 (5) 25 400 (-20) 50 -35 1225 625

F 100 (10) 20 841 (-29) 59 2025 (-45) 75 625 (-25) 55 -89 7921 3591

S 3600 (-60) 90 2500 (-50) 80 100 (-10) 40 1600 (-40) 70 -160 25600 7800

Tj -92 -132 -102 -125 T = 451 E Ti2 = 17133i51917

T2 8464 17424 10404E T.2 =

15625 i J51917 E E Xfj2

i j

~j2 4874 5410 3574 3275 17133

Transfer to new origin at 30.....r-.>UJ

Consequently,

(i) Total sum of squared deviations, E E Xij2 - T2/N =i j

17133 - (451)2/28 = 17133 - 203401/28 =

17133 - 7264.32 = 9868.68

(ii) Sum of squares for treatments, E (Tj 2/nj ) - T2/N =j

51917 - 7264.32 = 152.397

124

(iii)

45894 - 7264.32 = 11,473.5 - 7264.32 = 4209.184

(iv) Residual sum of squares, 9868.68 - 4465.26 = 5403.42

125

THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TURNIPS (C&2)

Source of Sum of Degrees EstimateVariation Squares of Freedom of Value F

BetweenTreatments 114.29 1 114.28 8.05(weeks)

BetweenDays 5734 6 955.66 67.34

Residual 851. 72 6 14.19

Total 6700 13

VI = 1, v2 = 6 we find the 5 percent and 1 percent points of F to

be 5.99 and 13.74 respectively. We conclude therefore that the

difference between treatments is significant (at the 5 percent

level) and that between days is highly significant (at the

1 percent level).


C 2 Ti T.2 21 xtj

S 0 (0) 30 25 (5) 25 5 25 25

M 25 (5) 25 100 (10) 20 15 225 ·125

T 25 (-5) 400 (-20) 50 -25 625 425

W 1024 (-32) 62 1444 (-38) 68 -70 4900 2468

T 100 (-10) 40 100 (-10) 40 -20 400 200

F 100 (10) 20 841 (-29) 59 -19 361 941

S 3600 (-60) 90 2500 (-50) 80 -110 12100 6100

Tj -92 -132 T = -224 ~ Ti 2 = 102841

18636

T2 8464 17424L T.2 =i J

25888 L L xt· 2i j J

2 4874 5410 10284xtj

Transfer to new origin at 30. I-'N0\

Consequently,

(~) Total sum of squared deviations, E E xtj2 - T2/N =i j

10284 ~ (224)2 = 10284 -50176 = 10284 - 3584.00 = 6700.0014 14

(~~) Sum of squares for treatments, j (Tj2/nj ) - T2/N =

25888 - 3584 = 3698.29 = 114.297

18636 - 3584 = 9318 - 3584 = 57342 -

(~v) Res~dua1 sum of squares, 6700 - 114.29 - 5734 = 851.71

127

128

THE ANALYS~S OF VARIANCE TEST FOR TURNIPS (C&3)



BetweenDays 2115.71 6 352.62 .58

Residual

Total

3636.75

5759.71

6

13

606.12


C 3 Ti T.2 2l. ~j

S 0 (0) 30 0 (0) 30 0 0 0

M 25 (5) 25 1024 (-32) 62 -27 729 1049

T 25 (-5) 35 0 (0) 30 -5 25 25

W 1024 (-32) 62 400 (-20) 30 -52 2704 1424

T 100 (-10) 40 25 (5) 25 -5 25 125

F 100 (10) 20 2025 (-45) 75 -35 1225 2125

S 3600 (-60) 90 100 (-10) 40 -70 4900 3700

Tj -92 -102 T = 194 L T. 2 = 8448i i9608

T2L T.2 =

8464 10404 i J18868 L L xtj2

i j

xtj2 4874 3574 8448

Transfer to a new origin at 30. ....N\0

Consequently,

(i) Total sum of squared deviations, rf X±j 2 - T2/N =

8448 -'(194)2 = 8448 ~ 37636 = 8448 - 2688.29 = 5759.7114 14

(ii) Sum of squares for treatments, j (Tj2/nj) - T2jN =

"18868 - 1344.14 = 2695.54 - 2688.29 = 7.257 --

130

(iii)

9608 - 1344.14 = 4804 - 2688.20 = 2115.712


131

THE ANALYS~S OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TURNIPS (C&4)

Source of Sum of Degrees EstimateVariation Squares of'Freedom of Variance F

BetweenTreatment 77.79 1 77.79 .28(weeks)

BetweenDays 3086.00 6 514.33 1.90

Residual

Total

1621. 71

4785.50

6

13

270.28


C 4 Ti T.2. ~j2.J..

S 0 (0) 30 25 (-5) 35 -5 25 25

M 25 (5) 25 225 (-15) 45 -10 100 250

T 25 (-5) 35 400 (-20) 50 -25 625 425

W 1024 (-32) 62 0 (0) 30 -32 1024 1024

T 100 (-10) 40 400 (-20) 50 -30 900 500

F 100 (10) 20 625 (-25) 55 -15 225 725

S 3600 (-60) 90 1600 (-40) 70 -100 10000 5200

Tj -92 -125 T = 217L Ti 2. = 8149i12899

T2. 8464 15625L T.2. =

Ji24089 L L ~j2.

i j

~j2. 4874 3275 8149

Transfer to a new origin at 30.

....WN

Consequently,

133

(i) Total sum of squared deviations, E E Xfj2 - T2/N =i j

8149 ~ (217)2 = 8149 ='47089 = 8149 - 3363.50 = 4785.5014 14

(ii) Sum of squares for treatments, j (Tj2/nj) - T2/N =

24089 - 3363.50 = 3441.29 - 3363.50 = 77.797

(iii)

'12899 - 3363.50 = 6449.50 - 3363.50 = 3086.002


134

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE. .

Bell Peppers (all)

Bell Peppers C & 2 01P)

Bell Peppers C & 3 (IDS)

- Difference between weeks

Significant at 75% (~ = 0.25)





Bell Peppers C & 4 (MP & IDS) - Difference between weeks


135

ANALYS~S OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR BELL PEPPERS (all)


BetweenTreatments 476.98 3 158.99 2.03*(weeks)

BetweenDays 336.27 6 56.05 .72

Residual

Total

1407.82

2221.07

18

27

78.21

Significant at 75 percent.


C 2 3 4 Ti Ti

2 ~j2

S 0 (0) 30 225 (15) 45 25 (-5) 25 0 (0) 30 10 100 250

M 225 (-15) 15 25 (-5) 25 625 (25) 55 0 (0) 30 5 25 875

T 25 (-5) 25 0 (0) 30 225 (15) 45 225 (15) 45 25 625 475

W 225 (-15) 15 100 (-10) 20 81 (-9) 21 0 (0) 30 -34 1156 406

T 25 (-5) 25 0 (0) 30 25 (5) 35 0 (0) 30 0 0 50

F 100 (-10) 20 100 (10) 40 25 (5) 35 0 (0) 30 5 25 225

S 100 (10) 40 4 (2) 32 100 (10) 40 225 (15) 45 37 1369 429

Tj -60 12 46 30 T = 48 E Ti2 = 2710i 3300

T2 3600 144 2116 900 ~ Tj2 =

J.6760 E E ~.2

i j J

~j2 700 454 1106 450 2710

Transfer to new origin at 30.~W0\

Consequently,

137

(i) Total sum of squared deviations, E E ~.2 - T2/N =i j J

2710 ~ (37)2 = 2710 -'1369 = 2710 - 488.93 = 2221.0728 28

6760 - 488.93 = 965.71 - 488.73 = 476.987

(iii)

3300 - 488.73 = 825.00 - 488.73 = 336.27--r(iv) Residual sums of square, 2221.07 - 476.98 - 336.27 = 1407.82

138

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR BELL PEPPERS (C&2)


BetweenTreatments 193.86 1 193.86 4.88*(weeks)

BetweenDays 666.00 6 111.00 2.80

Residual

Total

238.14

1098.00

6

13

39.69

ANALYSIS. OF VARIANCE TABLE

C 2 Ti Ti 2 Xij2

S 0 (0) 30 225 (15) 45 15 225 225

M 225 (-15) 15 25 (-5) 25 -20 400 250

T 25 (-5) 25 0 (0) 30 -5 25 25

W 225 (-15) 15 100 (-10) 20 -25 625 325

T 25 (-5) 25 0 (0) 30 -5 25 25

F 100 (-10) 20 100 (10) 40 0 0 200

S 100 (10) 40 4 (2) 32 12 144 104

Tj -40 12 T = -28 ~ Ti2 = 11541.

1444

T2 1600 144I: Tj 2 =i

1744 I: I: x·j2i j 1.

X.. 2 700 454 11541.J

Transfer to new origin at 30.I-'IJ,)\0

Consequently,

(i) Total sum of squared deviations, f j Xij2 -T2/N =

1154 -'(25)2 = 1154 ~'784 = 1154 - 56 = 1098~0014 14

1744 - 56 = 249.14 - 56 = 193.86--r

~ - 56= 722 - 56 = 666.002


140

141


Source of Sum of Degrees EstimateVariance Squares of Freedom of Variance F


BetweenDays 610.43 6 101. 74 .92

Residual

Total

664.71

1803.43

6

13

110.78


C 3 Ti Ti2 Xij2

S 0 (0) 30 25 (-5) 25 -5 25 25

M 225 (-15) 15 625 (25) 55 10 100 850

T 25 (-5) 25 225 (15) 45 10 100 250

W 225 (-15) 15 81 (-9) 21 -24 576 306

T 25 (-5) 25 25 (5) 35 0 0 50

F 100 (-10) 20 25 (5) 35 -5 25 125

S 100 (10) 40 100 (10) 40 20 400 200

Tj -40 46 T = 6~ Ti 2 = 1806J.1226

T2 1600 2116I: Tj 2 =i

3716 ~ ~ ~j2J. J

~j2 700 1106 1806

Transfer to new origin at 30.

......~N

Consequently,

143

(i) Total sum of squared deviations, E E Xij2 - T2/N =i j

1806 -'~ = 1806 - 2.57 ='1803.4314

'~ - 2.57 = 530.86 - 2.57 = 528.297

.~ - 2.57 = 613 - 2.57 = 610.432


144


Source of Sum of Degrees EstimateVariance Squares of Freedom of Variance F


BetweenDays 642.86 6 107.14 1.96

Residual

Total

328.57

1142.86

6

13

54.76


C 4 Ti T·2 ~j21.

S 0 (0) 30 0 (0) 30 0 0 0

M 25 (-5) 25 0 (0) 30 -15 225 225

T 25 (-5) 25 225 (15) 45 10 100 250

W 225 (-15) 15 0 (0) 30 -15 225 225

T 25 (-5) 25 0 (0) 30 -5 25 25

F 100 (-10) 20 0 (0) 30 -10 100 100

S 100 (10) 40 225 (15) 45 25 625 325

Tj -40 30 T = -10L Ti2 =

1150i1300

T2 1600 900~ Tj 2 =1.

2500 L L xt 2i j j

~j2 700 450 1150

Transfer to new origin at 30. ....~VI

Consequently,

(i) Total sum of squared deviations, f j ~j2 -T2/N =

1150 ~ (10022 = 1150 - 7.14 = 1142.8614

(ii) Sum of squares for treatments, j (Tj 2/nj ) - T2/N =

2500 - 7.14 = 178.57 - 7.14 = 171.43""1"4"

1300 - 7.14 = 650 - 7.14 = 642.862


146

CHI-SQUARE TESTS

148

Chi-square Test(Navel Oranges (C&2)

Week Variable Unplanned PlannedPurchases Purchases

Week C (12.2>13 (27.8>27 40

Week 2 Multiple (11.8>11 (27.2)28 39pricing

24 55 79

FrequenciesObserved Theoretical

f o f t

13112728

D.F. 1ex: = 0.10

12.211.827.827.2

.8-.8-.8

.8

.64

.64

.64

.64

.052

.054

.023

.024

x2 = .158

Ho - No difference in the number of unplanned purchases in controlweek and week two.

Decision: Accept Ho

Chi-square Test(Navel Oranges C&3)


Week C (13.8h3 (26.2)2740

Week 3 In,creased (13.2)14 (25.8)25 39Display Space

27 52 79

149


f o f t

13142725

D.F. = 10:: = 0.10

13.813.226.225.8

-.8.8.8

-.8

.64

.64

.64

.64

.046

.048

.024

.025

x2 = .143

Decision: Accept Ho

Chi-square Test(Navel Oranges C&4)


Week C (12.8)13 (27.2)27 40

Multiple PricingWeek 4 "& Increased (12.3>12 (26.7)27 39

Display Space

25 54 79

150


fo ft

13122727

D.F. = 1ex = 0.10

12.812.327.226.7

.2-.3-.2

.3

.04

.09

.04

.09

.0031

.0073

.0014

.0033

x2 = .0151

Decision: Accept Ho

Chi;"'square Test(Turnips C&2)


Week C (11. 2)14 (27.8)25 39

Week 2Multiple

(10.8) 8 (27.2)30Pricing 38

22 55 77

151


f o f t

148

2530

D.F. = 1a: = 0.10

11.210.827.827.2

2.8-2.8-2.8

2.8

7.847.847.847.84

.700

.726

.282

.288

x2 = 1.996

Decision: Accept Ho

Chi-square Test(TurnipsC&3)


Week C (10.4)14 (28.6)25 39

Week 3Increased

(9.6) (26.4)30Display Space 6 36

20 55 75

152


f o f t

146

2530

D.F. = 1ex: = 0.10

10.49.6

28.626.4

3.6-3.6-3.6

3.6

12.9612.9612.9612.96

1.251.350.450.49

x2 = 3.54

Decision: Reject Ho

Chi;"square Test(Turnips C&4)


Week C (10.7)14 (28.3)25 39

Multiple PricingWeek 4 & Increased (10.3) 7 (27·7)31 38

Display Space

21 56 77

153


f o f t (fo-f t )

147

2531

D.F. = 1ex = 0.10

10.710.328.327.7

3.3-3.3-3.3

3.5

10.8910.8910.8910.89

1.021.06

.38

.39

x2 = 2.85

Decision: Reject Ho

Chi-square Test(Bell PeppersC&2)


Week C (15.8>14 (23.2)25 39

Week 2 Multiple(15.2>17 (22.8)21Pricing 38

31 46 77

154


£0 £t ( £ _£ )2o t

14172521

D.F. = 1ex: = 0.10

15.815.223.222.8

-1.81.81.8

-1.8

3.243.243.243.24

.21

.21

.14

.14

x2 = .70

Decision: Accept EO

Ch:l-square Test(Bell PeppersC&3)


Week C (14.5h4 (24.5)25 39

Week 3 Increased (14.5)15 (24.5)24Display Space 39

29 49 78

155


f o f t

14152524

D.F. = 1ex = 0.10

14.514.524.524.5

-.5.5.5.5

.25

.25

.25

.25

.017

.017

.010

.010

x2 = .054

Decision: Accept Ho

Chi-square Test(Bell Peppers C&4)


. . . . . . .

Week C (14.3)14 (24·7)25 39

Multiple PricingWeek 4 & Increased (12·7)13 (22.3)22 35

Display Space

27 47 74

156


£0 £t

14132522

D.F. = 1ex: = 0.10

14.3·,12.724.722.3

-.3.3.3

-.3

.09

.09

.09

.09

.0062

.0070

.0036

.0040

x2 = .0208

Decision: Accept Ho

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Periodicals and Magazines

Blankenship, A. B. "Creativity in Consumer Research. 1I Journal ofMarketing, XXV (October, 1961), 34-38.

Cox, Keith. "The Responsiveness of Food Sales to Shelf Space Changesin Supermarkets. 1I Journal of Marketing Research, I (May, 1964),63-67.

Kollat, David T. and Ronald P. Willett. "Customer Impulse PurchasingBehavior."· Journal of Marketing Research, IV (February, 1967),21-31.

Morris, James L. and Robert J. Firch. liThe Analysis of SeparatePrice and Advertising Responses to Retail Grocery Specials. 1I

Proceedings 1967 Western Farm Economics Association, XL (July, 1967),47-52.

Namias, Jean. "Intentions to Purchase Compared with Actual Purchasesof Household Durables." Journal of Marketing, XXIV (July, 1959),60-64.

"Intentions to Purchase Related to ConsumerCharacteristics." Journal of Marketing, XXIV (July, 1960), 32-35.

Schapker, Ben L. "Behavior Patterns of Supermarket Shoppers."Journal of Marketing, XXX (Oct., 1966), 46-49.

Shaffer, James Duncan. "The Influence of 'Impulse Buying' or In-theStore Decisions on Consumers' Food Purchases." Journal of FarmEconomics, XLII (May, 1960), 317-323.

Stern, Hawkins. "The Significance of Impulse Buying Today." Journalof Marketing, XXXVI (April, 1962), 59-62.

B. Monographs and Special Studies

Dean, Gerald N. and Norman R. Collins. "World Trade in FreshOranges: Analysis of the Effect of European Economic CommunityPolicies." Giannini Foundation Monograph, XVIII (January, 1967), 9.

E. 1. DuPont DeNemours and Co. liThe Family Shopper." The 7thDuPont Consumer Buying Habits Study (1964).

IIToday's Purchases in Supermarkets."The 7th DuPont Consumer Buying Habits Study (1964).

158

Hawaii State Department of Health. Estimated Civilian Populationand Dwelling Units in Oahu Census Tracts '(July 1, 1967).

C. General Works

Bliss, Perry. ' Marketing and the Behavioral Sciences. Boston, 1967.

Brunk, H. D.' An Introduction to Mathematica1·Statistics. Boston,1960.

Dixon, Wilfred J. and Frank J. Massey, Jr. Introduction toStatistical Analysis. New York, 1957.

Kraft, Charles H. and Constance Van Eeden. A NonParametricIntroduction to Statistics. New York, 1965.

Massy, William F., Ronald E. Frunk and Thomas Lodah1. PurchasingBehavior and Personal Attributes. Philadelphia, 1968.

Ost1e, Bernard.Second Edition.

Statistics in Research.Ames, Iowa, 1964.

First Edition, 1954.

Siegel, Sidney. NonParametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.New York, 1956.

Wessel, Robert H. and Edward R. Willett. Statistics as Applied toEconomics and Business. New York, 1961.

CONSEQUENCE OF IN STORE MERCHANDISING PRACTICES A ...

Documents

Transcript of CONSEQUENCE OF IN STORE MERCHANDISING PRACTICES A ...