Workshop 1: The Characteristics of The Sales (Volume and Revenue) and Prices
Workshop 1: The Characteristics of The Sales (Volume and Revenue) and Prices
Workshop 1: The Characteristics of The Sales (Volume and Revenue) and Prices
Data: 124 weekly sales data of Heinz tomato ketchup, measured in US dollars,
between 1985 and 1988 in one supermarket in Sioux Falls, South Dakota (by A.
C. Nielsen). It includes sales, price, coupon promotion, major display promotion
information.
Sales
Price
volume
Display_only
Coupon_only
Display_Coupon
Valid N (listwise)
N
Statistic
124
124
124
124
124
123
123
Minimum
Statistic
18.89
.91
17.99
0
0
0
Descriptive Statistics
Maximum
Mean
Statistic
Statistic
773.94
114.4666
1.28
1.1572
626.87
100.5410
1
.27
1
.10
1
.06
Std. Deviation
Statistic
129.85165
.10324
112.76683
.444
.297
.233
Skewness
Statistic
Std. Error
2.599
.217
-.499
.217
2.321
.217
1.071
.217
2.761
.217
3.873
.218
According to the descriptive statistics above, the histogram below and the
time-series plot below, do the sales variable and the volume variable
behave relative equal. The minimum, maximum, mean, Std. Deviation and
skewness are almost the same. As with the sales variable, the maximum
volume is much higher than the typical volume. Like mentioned above,
this may be an indication on outliers and the histogram below conforms
the suspicion. Similar to the sales variable, the volume variable is not
normal distributed. There is a positive skew. And again, as the sales
variable, there are some fluctuations in the volume during the period of
time but it is still relatively stable.
Pursuant to the descriptive statistics above was the price 0.91 at the
lowest and 1.28 at the highest. The mean was 1.16. Pursuant to the
histogram below is the median 1.15. As opposed to the sales variable and
the volume variable is the mean and the median almost the same for the
price variable, and its almost at the peak. In addition, there is less skew.
Model Summary
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the
Model
R
R Square
Square
Estimate
1
.163a
.026
.018
111.71922
a. Predictors: (Constant), Price
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
B
Std. Error
1
(Constant)
306.201
113.356
Price
-177.723
97.574
a. Dependent Variable: volume
Sig.
.008
.071
Y=306,201-177,723x
In the grouped scattered plot above are the plots quiet mixed together.
Therefore, its difficult to see the effects of different types of promotions
on the sales. On the other hand, the volume when they use no promotion
is almost the same irrespective of the price. It seems like there is a
relatively inelastic demand when there is no promotion. To see the effects
of different types of promotions, is it better to use a box plot.
Its easier to use a box plot like this to investigate the effects. We can see
the minimum volume, maximum volume, the median, first quartile and
third quartile for the different types of promotion and no promotion.
Pursuant to the median, the typical sales volume, no promotion results in
lowest sale. Display only is better than no promotion, coupon only is even
better and display plus coupon results in highest volume and is thus the
best option. If we take a look at maximum volume is coupon only the best
option. But, the maximum volume for coupon only is much higher than the
median and this may be an indication on outliers. The grouped scattered
plot above confirms my suspicion.
However, its difficult to recommend one type of promotion or no
promotion. Display plus coupon results in higher volume but is also more
costly. When we take this into account, it may be more profitable to use
other types of promotion or no promotion. In addition, if the supermarket
always use promotion, it will no longer be a promotion and thus the effect
may disappear. To investigate this further, I will take a look at the
customers price elasticity below.
( p )= p
Descriptive Statistics
log_price
log_volume
Valid N (listwise)
Skewness
Std. Error
Statistic
-.631
1.013
.217
.217
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the
Square
Estimate
.043
.79073
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
4.497
.131
log_price
-1.994
.777
a. Dependent Variable: log_volume
Model
1
Sig.
.000
.011
Using the regression analysis above can we calculate the price elasticity in
the log-log model:
Log(d)= 4.497-1.994*log(p)
d
log ()
p
log ( )
d
d
'
D (p)
( p )= p
=
D ( p)
The price elasticity before the log transformation was 2.05 and after its
1.994. As we can see in the model summary for the log-log model,
Adjusted R Square is a bit higher in this model but it is still low. In this
model, the negative correlation between volume and price is statistically
significant at 5% level. Despite of the low Adjusted R Square, we can
assume that the price elasticity is 2 since the first price elasticity we got
were almost 2 and the latter were almost 2. This mean, if the price
increase with 1 %, the volume will decrease with 2 %.
We can investigate customers price elasticity further by looking at the
price elasticity for each type of promotion.
Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
Log_NoPromotionsPrice
a. Dependent Variable: log_volume
3.716
.072
.297
.396
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.090
Sig.
51.446
.000
.752
.455
Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
Log_DisplayPrice
a. Dependent Variable: log_volume
5.229
.183
-5.869
1.304
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
-.629
Sig.
28.565
.000
-4.502
.000
Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
Log_CouponPrice
a. Dependent Variable: log_volume
5.314
.501
-1.004
2.968
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
Sig.
10.602
.000
-.338
.742
-.106
Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
Log_DisplayAndCou
ponPrice
a. Dependent Variable: log_volume
5.645
.514
.090
3.640
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.011
Sig.
10.977
.000
.025
.981