Marketing Research Report: Introduction of The Cross Over' Product Into The Market

Marketing Research Report
Introduction of the Cross Over product into the market

Bachelor Applied Economics Major Marketing Marketing Management D0T30a Prof. Dr. Els Breugelmans Academy year 2010-2011
Team 7
Table of Content
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 3 RESEARCH SET-UP ........................................................................................................................................... 3 SAMPLE DESIGN .................................................................................................................................................. 3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD .............................................................................................................................. 4 QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................................................................... 4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 6 PRODUCT RELATED FACTORS ............................................................................................................................. 6 The package: Research Questions 1and 2 ...................................................................................................... 6 The Cross Over Product: Research Questions 3 and 4 ............................................................................... 8 The Target Group: Research Questions 5 and 6 ............................................................................................ 9 PLACE RELATED FACTORS ................................................................................................................................. 10 The Perceived Product Category: Research Questions 7, 8 and 9............................................................... 10 The Expected Outlet Type: Research Question 10 ....................................................................................... 12 PRICE RELATED FACTORS ................................................................................................................................. 13 The Willingness To Pay: Research Question 11........................................................................................... 13 Different Criteria: Research Question 12 .................................................................................................... 13 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NORA .............................................................................................................. 14 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 15 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................................................................18 APPENDIX B: OUTPUT OF THE TESTS IN SPSS.........................................................................................21
Team 7
Executive summary
Nora, a Dutch biscuit company, wishes to launch the Cross Over product. This marketing research aims at helping Nora to optimize their marketing mix. The research focuses on certain aspects of Product (including Packaging), Price and Place. In order to be able to provide some useful recommendations, our marketing research team has effectuated faceto-face interviews, with a heterogeneous, non-probability sample of n=130 respondents. The sample has been broken up into five age categories (12-15;16-18;19-25;26-40;41-60) an gender (M;F). Respondents were selected using judgment, following a quota of n=13 respondents per stratum. Data were collected, using a descriptive data collection method, combining an offline survey with an online survey tool. The interviews were carried out in a face-to-face setting, using hard copies of the questionnaire. The raw data were entered in the online survey tool, in order to monitor the fieldwork and facilitate their analysis. The questionnaire made use of five-point Likert scales where possible. All other questions used unique answer possibilities, except one question, on Price, where respondents were free to respond. The original English questionnaire was translated to Dutch, for practical reasons of intelligibility and homogeneity. The problem statement was defined as: What is the impact of product, place and price related factors on a consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product? The derived research questions included: Product related factors: o The influence of the packaging color on the intention to buy o The influence of the closure mechanism on the intention to buy o The influence of the texture of the caramel and of the biscuit on the intention to buy o The influence of the balance of biscuit and caramel on the intention to buy Target group related factors: o The relationship between age category and the intention to buy o The relationship between gender and the intention to buy Place related factors o The relationship between perceived product category and the intention to buy o The relationship between age category and the perceived product category o The relationship between gender and the perceived product category o The relationship between the global appreciation of the product and the expected outlet type Price related factors: o The willingness to pay in comparison with the proposed benchmark Other factors: o The relative importance of price and packaging for the buying decision
Mainly due to the limited sample size, the majority of the results show lower significance levels than wished for. Based on the marketing research we have done, and given the limitations of its setup and the significance level of the obtained results, we come to the following recommendations and conclusions: 1. 2. Product: Nora should work on the texture of the caramel. Further research is necessary, but the stickiness of the caramel seems to be a possibility for amelioration. Packaging, as a part of the Product: The actual packaging closure mechanism and color can be maintained. Liking the packaging tends to be more important to determine the intention to buy, than the price level. Price: Although the price level tends to be less important in the determination of the intention to buy, a price slightly under the 1.86 benchmark seems appropriate. Place: Although the perceived product category does not influence the intention to buy, its preferable to position the Cross Over product within the candy bar segment.
3. 4.
Team 7
Introduction
Nora, a Dutch biscuit company, wants to launch two new products named the Cross Over and the Kayak. The company appealed to the students of the Marketing Management course for the marketing research. Our team has chosen to create the market research around the Cross Over product, a crispy biscuit with caramel and Belgian chocolate. The purpose of our Marketing Research project is thus to help Nora find the appropriate way to introduce the Cross Over product into the market by providing the company with useful information concerning several variables in this process. In order to do so, we defined our decision problem, on which we will focus our research, as follows: Nora wants to receive information on the most important elements of the Cross Over product. In this report, we will explain the complete process of our research, our findings, the conclusions we make and our recommendations for Nora.
Research Set-Up
Sample Design
We have chosen a heterogeneous sample of 130 respondents. This sample was the maximum we could achieve by the number of Cross Over products we had at our disposal. On the one hand, we have decided to split up our sample in five age groups, i.e. 12-15 years (children); 16-18 years (pre-adults); 19-25 years (young adults); 26-40 years (young households) and 41-60 years (settled households). Some of these age groups have a larger age range than others. This is because we have put together respondents in a similar life cycle stage, in order to make sure that each age category consists of respondents with more or less the same maturity level. For example, a 12 year old might have another way of perceiving a product than a 16 year old. We have preferred not to take into account 60+ people because we have the feeling that in this age category, new products and consuming habits are not so easily adopted anymore. We also have decided to exclude people younger than 12 years because we believe that these ages are too young to properly understand the questions and answer options. On the other hand, we have made a distinction between males and females. This is because we believe that the perception of a product might vary between gender, according to our own experiences when tasting the product ourselves. Splitting up age by gender, gives us ten different categories. We have chosen to question exactly the same number of respondents in each category and in order to find out how many respondents we needed for each cell, we have put these two variables in a matrix (table 1). Since we only had product samples for maximum 130 respondents, we needed 13 respondents in each cell. Table 1: Data collection matrix 12-15 years 13 13 16-18 years 13 13 19-25 years 13 13 26-40 years 13 13 41-60 years 13 13
MALE FEMALE
For our research, we have used a non-probability sample: we have used predefined groups (represented by each cell in the matrix) when seeking respondents. First, we have applied judgment: we thought about which people
Team 7
of our acquaintances would be willing to cooperate. Second, we have used a quota per stratum: in every cell we have interviewed exactly 13 respondents. We are aware of the positive and the negative aspects of this choice because with a non-probability sample, we were likely to get the opinions of our targeted groups (cells), but we were also likely to overweigh those subgroups in our population which are more readily accessible (Trochim, 2006)1. This important limitation will be explained later in this report.
Data Collection Method

In the research for Nora, we have used a descriptive data collection method. More specifically, we have conducted an offline survey, using hard copies of the questionnaire (Appendix A), combined with an online survey tool. We have chosen this approach, because we wanted to give the respondents the opportunity to taste the Cross Over product. All our respondents have filled in a hard copy of the questionnaire during a face-to-face interview and once all data were collected, we have registered them in the online survey (http://www.thesistools.com/web/?id=160249) to get our data in an Excel-spreadsheet. Because of the fact that the number of sample products at our disposal was limited, we had to make sure not to surpass the maximum of 13 respondents per cell. In order to do so, we have agreed on continuously updating the matrix after each interview, so that we had an overview of which cells were already filled in. The reason why we have applied both, an offline and an online survey, is because we believed that this would lead to the highest response. Via a face-to-face survey, we could filter for respondents having the time to participate in our research, which gives us an advantage on solely relying on an online survey. We could get the interviewee more involved and we could emphasize the importance of our research. This way, we also had a better control on the respondents for them to fill in the questionnaires completely. Moreover, in the face-to-face contacts, we also had a better control on the sequence in which the respondents filled in the questions and tasted the product samples. This was very important because we needed questions to be answered before and after tasting the product. As we were able to let the respondents taste the product, the information we can provide to Nora is more valuable and complete. The reason why we think that this is so important is because when we tried the product ourselves, we came to different opinions concerning its taste.
Questionnaire
In the appendix (appendix A), our questionnaire can be found. Concerning this questionnaire, we have some important remarks to make. First of all, we have chosen to offer a five-point Likert scale where possible. We have made sure there was only one answer (whole number) possible. This way, the respondent disposed of enough possibilities to qualify his/her answers. On the other hand, a five-point Likert scale allowed us to limit the total number of possible answers. In view of the statistical analysis this would be more convenient. Second, for those questions where we did not use the five-point Likert scale, we have made sure that the respondent never had more than one possibility to answer, for the same reason as mentioned above. When consumers wanted to give more than one answer, we asked them to choose the answer that fitted their opinion the most or seemed the most important possibility to them. Third, our questionnaire also had one open question, concerning the perceived price of the Cross Over product. In order to give the respondents an idea of the current price of similar products, we have developed a price benchmark. We have compared different prices of different products (coming from different Team 7 We have calculated that the average price of all these articles is 11.10 /kilo. Since the weight of one Cross Over product is 28 grams and the weight of six products 168 grams (six products in one package), the appropriate benchmark is: (11.10/1000)*168 = 1.86
product categories). After calculating the average price of all these products and comparing the weight of the Cross Over product to this price, we had an idea of the benchmark that we had to give. Table 2 explains how we have calculated this price benchmark. By using this benchmark, we have created some important limitations in our research. We will explain these limitations later in this report. Table 2: Calculation price benchmark Bounty 375 g = 2.99 7.97 /kg 7.58 /kg 19.66 /kg
Cent Wafers Original 190 g = 1.44 Cral Vital Energy Milk Chocolate Cookies Cha-Cha Cote DOr Fondant Chocolate bar Kelloggs Mini Breaks Kelloggs Squares Kinder Bueno Leo Lion Mars Melo Cakes Milka Hazelnut Milky Way Pick Up Prince Start Nestl Rolo Bars Snickers Twix Bars 150 g = 2.95
324 g = 3.35 45 g = 0.54
10.34 /kg 12 /kg
120 g = 2.83
23.58 /kg
144 g = 2.19 215 g = 2.99 400 g = 3.69 270 g = 3.04 375 g = 2.99 250 g = 2.65 300 g = 2.85 375 g = 2.99 140 g = 1.99 300 g = 1.75 260 g = 2.09 375 g = 2.99 375 g = 2.99
15.21 /kg 13.91 /kg 9.23 /kg 11.26 /kg 7.97 /kg 10.6 /kg 9.5 /kg 7.97 /kg 14.21 /kg 5.84 /kg 8.04 /kg 7.97 /kg 7.97 /kg
Fourth, we had to translate the original English version of the questionnaire into a Dutch version because all our respondents were Dutch speaking people. Especially for the younger age categories, this was a necessary adjustment. Although we could have opted for an English questionnaire for the older age categories, we have chosen to use the same Dutch questionnaire for all our respondents in order to respect a homogeneous approach. Nevertheless, this choice brings up important limitations, which will be explained further in this report.
Team 7
Finally, the reader will observe that we included some questions in our questionnaire, which we do not discuss in the analysis of the research questions. Because of time and space limitations, we have not had the opportunity to examine the respondents answers on the questionnaire questions 4 and 5. As a result, we cannot discuss descriptives concerning these questions.
Research Questions
The basis of our research is our problem statement which derives from the decision problem. We have defined our problem statement as follows: What is the impact of product, place and price related factors on a consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product? We focused especially on the product and place P of the marketing mix. We also examine the price P, but less in detail than the other two Ps. This is because we believe that in the case of Nora, these three aspects are the most interesting. When a company launches a product in the market, it is important that the product itself corresponds with the needs and the desires of the consumer. In addition, it is crucial that the consumer can find the product at the place where he/she expects it to be found. In the following paragraphs, we will explain which research questions we have developed and examined and why these are interesting for Nora and our research. We will explain how we have determined which test to use and how we have interpreted the results from each test. We have executed all statistical tests with the IBM SPSS Statistics 17.0 program. The reader can find all the output tables and graphs in Appendix B . Before we explain our analysis, we would like to point out the difference between independent groups and related groups, when looking at the independent variable. Most of our independent variables consist of a number of independent groups. These groups of responses are tested as though they may come from different populations (Breugelmans, 2010: 502). This means that the respondents in our sample can only belong to one of the groups because we asked them to only tick one answer option in the respective questionnaire question. We have one independent variable that consists of two related groups (the texture of the biscuit/caramel). These groups of responses are originated from the sample population (Breugelmans, 2010: 502). This means that respondents in our sample can belong to both groups because we gave them two different questions in the questionnaire concerning this variable (question 8 and 9) and so, they could express their opinion concerning both the texture of the biscuit and the texture of the caramel. In our opinion, answering the following research questions and examining the following hypotheses might provide if supported by a statistical significance interesting information for our research and for Nora.
Product Related Factors

The package: Research Questions 1and 2
We believe that the color and the closure mechanism are two aspects of the package that are very important. When we examine the influence of these two aspects on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product and find statistical significant results, we can provide Nora with very useful information. The package of a product is the first thing, and very often also the only thing, that a potential consumer sees of a product before buying it. So this first impression is crucial in the buying process. When Nora knows how potential consumers react on the prototype of the package, the company can decide to adjust the package if necessary.
RQ 1: Does the color of the package have an influence on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product? H0: The color of the package has no impact on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product (all are equal). HA: The color of the package has an impact on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product (at least one differs from another one). Questionnaire Questions: 2 and 13 DV: the intention to buy IV: The color of the package Statistical test: ANOVA SPSS output: Appendix B1
Team 7
This research question consists of two variables, a dependent and an independent variable. The dependent variable here is the intention to buy. The measurement scale of its answer options is an interval scale because the options can be classified and ordered, the differences between the objects can be compared and the zero point is arbitrary. The color of the package is our independent variable. Originally, five independent groups were to be distinguished: each score that respondents could give on the five-point Likert scale in questionnaire question 2 represents one group. But after the data collection, we have downgraded the groups of the independent variable to three independent groups (attracted to the color, neutral, not attracted to the color), which is a sufficient number of independent groups to run the ANOVA-test. We have decided to downgrade this variable because this would make the analysis more convenient. The first step when interpreting the output of a t-Test or an ANOVAtest always includes checking whether the amount of respondents in each group is sufficient. We are aware of the limited number of respondents that we have interviewed and the potential problem of an insufficient number in groups that this causes. Downgrading one of the variables most of the time can provide a solution for this kind of problem. This is the reason why we, in many cases, downgraded a variable in advance before executing the specific test and so anticipated on this complexity. Despite our efforts, we will observe that this does not solve the problem in all cases. As we just mentioned, when analyzing an ANOVA-test, the first step is to check whether all groups reach a number of respondents bigger than 30. This initial step states a problem for the first test, although we anticipated it already by downgrading the independent variable. There are only 19 participants which belong to the not attracted to the color group. Luckily, 19 still exceeds the minimum of 15 that cannot be surpassed. Secondly, we look at the significance level, provided by the F-test. We observe a significance level of 0.051. Normally, we now have to reject the alternative hypothesis because the significance level is higher than 0.05. Since there is only a difference of 0.1% which stays under 10%, it is still acceptable to reject the null hypothesis. It is important to note that, by not rejecting the alternative hypothesis based on a significance level between 5% and 10%, our conclusion will be less statistical significant. Hence, we think it is worth investigating these figures more in detail because they can point to an underlying relationship. Because of several limitations (cfr. infra), our tests cannot always assure perfect significance. However, in this case we cannot simply ignore the fact that there might be a relation between the two variables concerned. This is the reason why we do choose to reject the null hypothesis and to look a bit further. By rejecting the null hypothesis we can already conclude there is at least one of the averages that varies from the others, however we do not know which one. Hence, we continue with a test of homogeneity of variances. The significance level belonging to this test is 0.901, which means equal variances are assumed, and we have to look at the Tukey-part of the post hoc test. The asterisks in the post hoc test tell us there is a significant difference between the average of the not attracted to the color group and the attracted to the color group. We can verify this when looking at the descriptives. The mean of the not attracted to the color group (i.e. 2.32) is much lower than the mean of the attracted to the color group (i.e. 3.04), which is a statistical significant difference. Therefore, we can conclude that the respondents who find the color of the package rather attractive are more likely to buy the Cross Over product. Since the number of respondents (n=19) who do not like the color (and therefore do not wish to buy it) is remarkably lower than those who have a neutral or positive attitude towards it (n=44+67), we can conclude that Nora does not need to change the color of the packaging.
RQ 2: Does the closure mechanism of the package have an impact on the consumers intention to buy the
Cross Over product? H0 : The closure mechanism of the package has no impact on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. HA: The closure mechanism of the package has an impact on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. Questionnaire Questions: 3 and 13 DV: the intention to buy IV: the closure mechanism Statistical test: ANOVA SPSS output: Appendix B2
Team 7
This research question consists of two variables. The dependent variable for this research question is the intention to buy with an interval measurement scale as explained above. The independent variable is the closure mechanism. For the same reason as the one mentioned in the analysis of the first test, we downgraded the five independent groups of the independent variable (each score that respondents could give on the five-point Likert scale in questionnaire question 3) to three independent groups (respondents find the package easy to use or not easy to use or are neutral). However, this does not change the kind of test we need to use for this research question. Here the ANOVA-test is the appropriate test. Analyzing this test, we have to cope with the same problem as in the previous test. The number of participants of one of the groups is only 16, which is lower than 30 but luckily higher than the minimum of 15 that cannot be surpassed. When checking the F-test, the significance level reaches a percentage of 23.6%, which is much higher than 5%. With such a high percentage we certainly have to reject the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis states that there is no impact on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. As the number of respondents who find the package closure mechanism inconvenient (n=16) is remarkably lower than the number of respondents who are neutral or find the package closure mechanism convenient (n=28+86), we conclude that changing the closure mechanism of the packaging is not necessary.
The Cross Over Product: Research Questions 3 and 4

The Cross Over product consists of three ingredients: caramel, biscuit and a chocolate covering. Based on the information that is printed on the package, we can say that the two ingredients that are most present in the product are the caramel (26%) and the biscuit (48%). If Nora knows whether consumers are more or less likely to buy the product because of the texture of the caramel or the texture of the biscuit, the company can decide to emphasize different things in its marketing campaign. For example, if our findings are that consumers are more likely to buy the product because of the texture of the biscuit and that they are less likely to buy the product because of the texture of the caramel, Nora can emphasize the positive features of the biscuit in a marketing campaign. We also believe that Nora can get useful information about the balance between the ingredients and maybe opt to change something about it. Only when consumers think of the Cross Over product as being tasty, they will consider a second purchase, which is the kind of behavior that Nora wants to trigger.
RQ 3: Are people less or more likely to buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the caramel or
because of the texture of the biscuit? H0 : The average of respondents who would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the caramel is equal to the average of respondents who would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the biscuit. HA: The average of respondents who would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the caramel is not equal to the average of respondents who would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the biscuit. Questionnaire questions: 8 and 9 DV: the intention to buy based on the texture of the IV: the texture of the biscuit/caramel biscuit/caramel Statistical test: Paired-Sample-t-Test SPSS output: Appendix B3
The intention to buy based on the texture of the biscuit/caramel is the dependent variable with an interval measurement scale as explained above. Our independent variable is the texture of the biscuit/caramel. Here, the two groups are related to each other. As we already explained above, this is because respondents can belong to both groups, since we gave them the opportunity to express their opinion in two different questionnaire questions (question 8 and 9). To conclude, the Paired-Sample-t-Test is the appropriate test for this research question. The first step of the analysis includes checking whether the number of respondents exceeds the number of 30, which is the case. With 130 respondents having answered on both the questionnaire questions, we can continue to the next step. We observe that the significance level stays below 5% (0.007 < 0.05) which means we can reject the null hypothesis. This tells us that the average of respondents who would buy the Cross Over product Team 7
because of the texture of the caramel, is not equal to the average of respondents who would buy the product because of the texture of the biscuit. The first table of the SPSS output shows that respondents would rather buy the biscuit because of the texture of the biscuit instead of the texture of the caramel (comparing the means: 3.04 > 2.71).
RQ 4: Does the existing balance between chocolate covering, biscuit and caramel have an influence on the
consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product? H0 : The existing balance between chocolate covering, biscuit and caramel has no influence on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. HA: The existing balance between chocolate covering, biscuit and caramel has an influence on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. Questionnaire questions: 7 DV: the intention to buy based on the existing IV: none balance of ingredients Statistical test: One-Sample-t-Test SPSS output: Appendix B4
In this case we observe only one variable. The dependent variable is the intention to buy based on the existing balance of ingredients which values can be measured along an interval measurement scale as explained above. We do not have an independent variable, so no groups can be distinguished. The only suitable test in this case is the One-Sample-t-Test. Also in the case of a One-Sample-t-Test, we have to check whether N reaches the sufficient number of 30, which is the case (130 > 30). We cannot reject the null hypothesis because the output presents a p-value of 0.691. We can conclude that the existing balance between chocolate covering, biscuit and caramel has no influence on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. When considering the results of these two t-Tests together, we can conclude texture will play a much bigger role compared with the existing balance in the consumers intention to buy. The existing balance between biscuit and caramel does not affect the intention to buy. However, there is a significant difference between the (positive) influence of the biscuit on the intention to buy and the (more negative) influence of the caramel on the intention to buy. The mean of the number of respondents who would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the biscuit (3.04) is higher than the mean of the number of respondents who would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the caramel (2.71). In other words, when respondents would buy the product, they would do it rather because they like the biscuit than because they like the caramel.
The Target Group: Research Questions 5 and 6

We believe that it is very interesting for Nora to know which age category or gender is most attracted to the product. This can have an influence on the marketing campaign. Nora will also be able to specify the target group for the product better.
RQ 5: Does the intention to buy the Cross Over product differ amongst age categories?
H0 : The intention to buy the Cross Over product does not differ amongst age categories. HA: The intention to buy the Cross Over product does differ amongst age categories. Questionnaire questions: 13 and 14 DV: the intention to buy IV: the age category Statistical test: Chi-Square Test for Independence SPSS output: Appendix B5
We notice two variables. The first variable, the intention to buy, is the dependent variable which has an interval measurement scale as explained above. However, after the data collection, we downgraded the dependent variable to a nominal measurement scale (buyer/non-buyer). The reason why this measurement scale is nominal is because we can identify and classify the objects, but no comparisons are possible. The independent variable in this research question is the age category which has five independent groups. So, we can conclude that a ChiTeam 7
10
Square Test for Independence is the right test here. An important remark here is that it was not really necessary to downgrade the dependent variable in order to get the sufficient amount of respondents. We decided to downgrade the interval measurement scale to a nominal measurement scale in order to be able to concentrate on the two specific groups buyer and non-buyer because we wanted to go in detail on these two groups. The first step in analyzing the outcome of a Chi-Square Test is always checking if the minimum expected cell frequency in the note below the output is lower than 20%. Since we downgraded the dependent variable (the intention to buy) from an interval to a nominal measurement scale, there was no problem according to this step (0% < 20%). The p-value of this test amounted to 0.101, which is higher than 0.05. Therefore we cannot reject the null hypothesis: the intention to buy the Cross Over product does not differ amongst age categories. Although this is the right procedure to do this test, we want to notice something which can be useful for Nora. When we emphasize the fact the p-value is only 0.101, we can with low significance reject the null hypothesis and say there is a difference in the intention to buy amongst the different age categories. This becomes clear when we transform our data into a graph (appendix B5). When putting the different age categories on the horizontal axis and the percentage of respondents who tend to buy the Cross Over product on the vertical axis, we can observe very clearly that certainly respondents from 12 to 18 years old and respondents from 41 to 60 years old are interested in buying the product. We would like to stress the fact that we can only draw this conclusion based on a low significance level. This observation could lead to the hypothesis that settled households are more likely to buy the product, because they have children belonging to the age category 12-18 years old. As we have not registered whether the respondents in the age category 41-60 years old do have children between 12 and 18, we cannot make such a conclusion. However, as the results of our test tend in that direction, we suggest that Nora does some further research to clear this point out.
RQ 6: Is there a relationship between gender and the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product?
H0 : There is no relationship between gender and the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. HA: There is a relationship between gender and the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. Questionnaire questions: 13 and 15 DV: the intention to buy IV: gender Statistical test: Chi-Square Test for Independence SPSS output: Appendix B6
Two variables are to be examined. The dependent variable is the intention to buy which we downgraded to a nominal measurement scale (buyers/non-buyers). The reason why we downgrade the dependent variable in this case is the same as the one mentioned in the analysis of the previous research question. We want to concentrate on the buyer group and the non-buyer group and leave the neutral group out of consideration. The independent variable is gender. It has two independent groups, male and female. The appropriate test in this case is the Chi-Square Test for Independence. The p-value of this test reaches a percentage of 43.4%. With such a high p-value it is necessary to reject the alternative hypothesis. In other words, we could say it is not very important for Nora to target their marketing campaign more to males or females. When there is no relationship between gender and the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product, we expect that the proportion of buyers within each gender group would be approximately 50%. These expectations are proven by the results from the test: 50% males and 41.7% females are interested in buying the Cross Over product which is very close to the expected 50% division.
Place Related factors

The Perceived Product Category: Research Questions 7, 8 and 9
We believe that it is very interesting for Nora to know in which product category the potential consumer places the product. This can, for example, influence the marketing campaign, the place of the product on the shelves, the place of the product in the store, the price level the product is associated with (price is referred to in the last
Team 7
11
research question). The perceived product category also determines the potential competitors for Nora, which appears to be very valuable information. If Nora knows from the previous research questions which age category and gender is most attracted to the product, it is also very useful to know in which product category these potential consumers expect the product to be.
RQ 7: Does the perceived product category have an influence on the consumers intention to buy the Cross
Over product? H0 : The perceived product category has no influence on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. HA: The perceived product category has an influence on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. Questionnaire questions: 11 and 13 DV: the intention to buy IV: the perceived product category Statistical test: Independent-Sample-t-Test SPSS output: Appendix B7
Here, we have two variables. Our dependent variable is intention to buy and has an interval measurement scale as explained above. Our independent variable is the perceived product category. Each product category is a group and is independent of the others, so we have four independent groups. In sum, we need to run the ANOVA-test. But, this would result in an insufficient number of respondents in each group: the N, in the first table of our output (appendix B7), would be smaller than 30 and even smaller than the minimum amount of 15 that cannot be surpassed. As a solution, we dropped two of the four independent groups of the independent variable, namely the product categories chocolate and ginger cakes. With only two independent groups left, the needed test changes into an Independent-Sample-t-Test. After dropping two of the four independent groups, each group consisted of an amount of respondents larger than 30 or at least larger than the minimum amount of 15 that cannot be surpassed. Onwards, we look at the outcome of the Levene test to check whether equal variances are assumed. This is the case for this test because the significance level was higher than 5% (0.339 > 0.05). For this reason we look at the first row of the t-Test table and found that the p-value is 0.252. Hence, we cannot reject the null hypothesis and we can conclude that the perceived product category has no influence on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. The above test leads to the conclusion that consumers buying intention is not influenced by the perceived product category. From that respect, Nora could fit the Cross Over product in any of the suggested product categories. However, we can make it easier for consumers, willing to buy the product, to find it, when Nora would put it on the shelf where consumers most expect it. Therefore, we have formulated the following research questions, in order to find out which consumer groups place the product in which product category.
RQ 8: Does the perceived product category differ amongst age categories?

H0 : The perceived product category does not differ amongst age categories. HA: The perceived product category does differ amongst age categories. Questionnaire questions: 11 and 14 DV: the perceived product category IV: the age category Statistical test: Chi-Square Test for Independence SPSS output: Appendix B8
The research question consists of two variables. The dependent variable is the perceived product category. The measurement scale we observe here is a nominal scale. This means we can identify and classify the objects but no comparisons are possible. The independent variable is the age category with five independent groups. So, the Chi-Square Test for Independence is the appropriate test to analyze this research question. After the collection of our data, we dropped the chocolate and the ginger cakes groups from the independent variable, in order to respect the minimum number of observations in each group. Since this variable still consists of two independent groups after dropping these two groups, this will not change the needed test.
Team 7
12
Although we know, it is statistically better to have a p-value of less than 5%; we do reject the null hypothesis, since the p-value does not pass the level of 10% (0.061). The alternative hypothesis, tells us, at a lower level of significance, that the perceived product category does differ amongst age categories. To give a little more insight in this issue, we created a graphical representation of the figures from the cross tabulation table (Appendix B8). On the vertical axis the percentage of respondents that perceive the Cross Over product as a candy bar and not as a cookie is represented. The horizontal axis sorts the different age categories from low to high. Based on this bar chart, we can conclude the Cross Over product is much more seen as a candy bar instead of a cookie, and the older the respondents, the more they share this idea.
RQ 9: Is there a relationship between gender and the perceived product category?

H0 : There is no relationship between gender and the perceived product category. HA: There is a relationship between gender and the perceived product category. Questionnaire questions: 11 and 15 DV: the perceived product category IV: gender Statistical test: Chi-Square Test for Independence SPSS output: Appendix B9
Here we also need a Chi-Square Test for Independence. We distinguish two variables, the dependent variable the perceived product category and the independent variable gender. On the one hand, the dependent variable has a nominal measurement scale because we can identify and classify the objects, but no comparisons are possible and we cannot order the objects. On the other hand, the independent variable has two independent groups, namely male and female. As in the previous test, we begin by dropping the chocolate group and the ginger cake group. This has an important influence on the first step of the analysis: by dropping these groups, we made our test more statistical significant, which can be checked when considering the minimum expected cell frequency (0.0% < 20%). The pvalue is very high (0.902) which leads to rejecting the alternative hypothesis. Our conclusion for this test is that there is no relation between gender and the perceived product category.
The Expected Outlet Type: Research Question 10

Now that we have an idea of the perceived product category of the Cross Over product, we think that it is interesting to investigate which is the appropriate outlet type for the product according to our respondents. If there are potential consumers who highly appreciate the Cross Over product, information about in which outlet types these people expect the product to be, is very useful information for Nora. If Nora wants to boost the sales of this product, it is clear that the product has to be easily available for the consumer. And this can only be realized when he can find the product where he expects to find it.
RQ 10: Is the global appreciation of the Cross Over product related to the expected outlet type?
H0 : There is no relation between the global appreciation of the Cross Over product and the expected outlet type. HA: There is a relation between the global appreciation of the Cross Over product and the expected outlet type. Questionnaire questions: 10 and 12 DV: the global appreciation IV: the expected outlet type Statistical test: Independent-Sample-t-Test SPSS output: Appendix B10
This research question has two variables. The dependent variable is the global appreciation. This variable has an interval measurement scale because we can classify and order the objects, differences between the objects can be compared and the zero point is arbitrary. The independent variable is the expected outlet type. Five independent groups can be identified, which is more than two. So this results in the appropriate IndependentSample-t-Test.
Team 7
13
By putting two groups together (the specialized outlet group and the grey channel group) we just meet the required minimum number of 15 respondents (16 > 15). The p-value higher than 5% (0.548 > 0.05), confirms the rejection of the alternative hypothesis. We can conclude that there is no precise relationship between the two variables (0.061 > 0.05). However we want to notice the p-value is not very high, so we decided to not reject the alternative hypothesis based on this very low significance level. After further analysis of the SPSS output of this test we perceive the mean value corresponding to the supermarket group (3.24) is higher than the mean of the group of people that rather expect the Cross Over product on the shelves in a specialized outlet or the grey channel (2.75). To summarize this all, we could conclude, on a lower significance level, that people who rather think to find the Cross Over product on a shelf in a supermarket, will appreciate the product more than people who think they will have to look for the Cross Over product somewhere in a specialized outlet type or in the grey channel. Nevertheless, we want to stress that further recommendations we make concerning this subject could suffer from the low number of respondents in the grey channel group and the specialized outlet group.
Price Related Factors

The Willingness To Pay: Research Question 11
We believe that information about the consumers willingness to pay for the product can be crucial information for Nora. This is because of the fact that consumers will not buy the product when, in their opinion, it is priced too high. Based on the information that we will receive from this research question, Nora will have an indication at which level they have to set the price.
RQ 11: Is the price that consumers are willing to pay for the Cross Over product equal to the given price
benchmark (cfr. table 2)? H0 : The price that the consumers are willing to pay for the Cross Over product is equal to the given price benchmark. HA: The price that the consumers are willing to pay for the Cross Over product is not equal to the given price benchmark. Questionnaire questions: 5 DV: the willingness to pay IV: none Statistical test: One-Sample-t-Test SPSS output: Appendix B11
In this case, there is only one variable. The dependent variable is the willingness to pay which is a ratio scale. No independent variable can be determined, thus no groups can be distinguished. This means we need to analyze the data with a One-Sample-t-Test. In the first step, we start with checking whether all the groups reach more than 30 respondents. As can be seen in the output we have sufficient respondents (130 > 30). Next, when taking a look at the significance level, we can assume that there is a relationship between the consumers willingness to pay and the given price benchmark. This significance level is 5.5% which is only few higher than 5%, but less than 10% giving us the possibility to assume the relation, thus to reject the null hypothesis. In the last step, when checking the average price the respondents want to pay for the Cross Over product, we see that the average price of the package including six Cross Over products in our sample amounts to 1.7997, which is below our benchmark of 1.86 (cfr. table 2).
Different Criteria: Research Question 12

This research question gives Nora information on which criterion of the product is more important to the customer. It can be very interesting to emphasize this criterion in a marketing campaign.
Team 7
14
RQ 12: Are the criteria why a consumer would buy the Cross Over product (because of price/package) all
equally important in our sample? H0 : All the criteria are equally important. HA: One criterion is more important than the other. Questionnaire questions: 6 DV: the criteria price/package Statistical test: Chi-Square Test for Goodness of Fit SPSS output: Appendix B12
IV: none
We examine only one variable, which is our dependent variable and which consists of four independent groups (respondents who would buy the product because of price, package, none and other). We dropped the none group and the other group from this dependent variable, because we do not want to investigate these two. In view of our research question, we are only interested in the price group and the package group. In the questionnaire, we also added the answer possibilities none and other in order to give the respondents the possibility to express their opinion by giving them all the possible answer options. The objects of this dependent variable have a nominal scale because they can only be identified and classified, but no comparisons are possible. We do not have an independent variable, so no groups can be distinguished. We can conclude a ChiSquare Test for Goodness of Fit is convenient. The expected minimum cell frequency at the bottom of the output has to be below 20%. As you can see in the output, that is the case for this test. The p-value of this test is 0.055 (higher than 5%) which leads to the conclusion that all the criteria are equally important. However, it would not be smart not examining these figures a little more carefully. We observe the p-value still holds itself under 10%, a reason to assume there could be a difference in the importance of the different criteria. Checking the descriptive table, we can conclude that the consumers finds the package approximately twice as important as the price, namely 67.12% in comparison with 32.88%.This conclusion is supported by the bar chart we have created (Appendix B12), putting the two answer options (package and price) on the horizontal axis and the number of respondents on the vertical axis. The bar responding to the package criterion is about twice as high as the one for price.
Recommendations for Nora

In this part we describe our recommendations for Nora based on the results of the analysis above. First of all, we would like to make some recommendations concerning the package of the Cross Over product. We start with the color of the package. There is a significant relationship between the liking of the color of the packaging and the intention to buy the Cross Over product. People, who do not like the color of the packaging, show a lower intention to buy than the neutral and positive groups (Respective average: 2.32, compared to 2.93 and 3.04). Since the number of respondents (n=19) who do not like the color (and therefore do not wish to buy it) is remarkably lower than those who have a neutral or positive attitude towards it (n=44+67), we can conclude that Nora does not need to change the color of the packaging. The second factor we have examined is the closure mechanism of the package. The results show that there is no impact of the closure mechanism on the consumers intention to buy the Cross Over product. As the number of respondents who find the package closure mechanism inconvenient (n=16) is remarkably lower than the number of respondents who are neutral or find the package closure mechanism convenient (n=28+86), we advise Nora to maintain the existing closure mechanism of the package. Secondly, we would like to make some recommendations concerning the Cross Over product itself. The existing balance between biscuit and caramel does not affect the intention to buy. However, there is a significant difference between the (positive) influence of the biscuit on the intention to buy and the (more negative) influence of the caramel on the intention to buy. The mean of the number of respondents who would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the biscuit (3.04) is higher than the mean of the number of respondents who would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the caramel (2.71). In other
Team 7
15
words, when respondents would buy the product, they would do it rather because they like the biscuit than because they like the caramel. Therefore, we recommend Nora to reevaluate the texture of the caramel. As we have not questioned the respondents further on their appreciation of (the biscuit and) the caramel, this research does not give further input on the specific actions to take on the caramel texture (e.g. harder, softer, more chewy, etc.). Moreover, we suggest that Nora emphasizes the presence and the positive aspects of the biscuit in marketing campaigns. It is impossible to conclude from our analysis that respondents do not like the caramel at all, because this was not investigated. But we have to mention that several respondents spontaneously declared that the caramel felt too sticky, which made it difficult for them to chew the product. Another recommendation is about targeting the right people. Our results do not show any significant relationship between the intention to buy the Cross Over product and the studied age categories. However, on a lower significance level, we see that certainly respondents from 12 to 18 years old and respondents from 41 to 60 years old are more interested in buying the product. This observation could lead to the hypothesis that settled households are more likely to buy the product, because they have children belonging to the age category 12-18 years old. As we have not registered whether the respondents in the age category 41-60 years old do have children between 12 and 18, we cannot make such a conclusion. As the results of our test tend in that direction, we recommend Nora to do some further research to clear this point out. We can also make a few recommendations about the perceived product category. It is better for Nora to categorize the Cross Over product as a candy bar than as a cookie. Although the perceived product category does not have any significant influence on the intention to buy as such, Nora can make consumers life easier when placing the product where consumers expect to find it. The perceived product category tends to differ amongst age, albeit at a lower significance level. The number of respondents placing the product within the candy bar segment is higher than those placing the product within the cookie segment, and this throughout all age categories. The older respondents are, the more significant this difference becomes. The expected outlet type has no significant influence on the appreciation of the Cross Over product. However, on a lower significance level, we see that people who rather think to find the Cross Over product on a shelf in a supermarket, will appreciate the product more than people who think they will have to look for the Cross Over product somewhere in a specialized outlet type or in the grey channel. Therefore, we recommend Nora to sell the product in a supermarket, rather than through the grey channel or a specialized outlet. A penultimate recommendation is about the consumers willingness to pay for the Cross Over product. The willingness to pay for a box of six Cross Over products is 1.7997 which is lower than our benchmark. We have explained above (table 2) how we calculated this benchmark. Nevertheless, as we already mentioned, there are some important limitations concerning this benchmark that we have to take into account. We explain these below. We recommend Nora to carefully think about determining a price for the product. The company can better set the price lower than the given price benchmark in order to boost sales. A final recommendation is about which criterion is most important for respondents: price or package. There is no significant difference in influence of packaging and price on the intention to buy. However, on a lower significance level, we do see that the number of respondents considering the package to be the most important is about the double of those who mention price as the most important factor (respectively n= 49 and n=24). So we advise Nora to emphasize the qualities of the package more than the price of the product.
Limitations
In our marketing research project, we had to cope with several limitations which we will describe and explain in the following paragraphs. The area of marketing research was, before we started this course, a complete unknown area. We had never used the SPSS program before, so it has taken us some time to get to know it. Nothing in this marketing environment was obvious for us, everything we did, and we had to check twice before continuing. Even after having checked,
Team 7
16
the process was by trial and error. We experienced this aspect not only as a limitation; it can also be seen as a positive aspect, because we think we can maximize our development by learning from our mistakes. At the start of the research project we had to choose which Ps of the marketing mix we wanted to use. We have chosen to not to focus on the 4 Ps all together, but to go more into depth on a few Ps. So, we have chosen to examine the product P, the place P and the price P. As a consequence, we cannot help Nora with the promotion of their new product, which is equally important to the other Ps in the marketing mix, because we did not examine this aspect. Another important limitation in our project was the amount of Cross Over cookies we had at our disposal. Not every team has chosen to use product samples in the research, but, nevertheless, it was impossible for Nora to provide the requesting teams with enough product samples for 150 respondents per team. We have collected 63 product samples from other teams and have decided to divide the product samples in quarters, which gave us the possibility to interview 130 people and let them taste the product. So, because of the fact that we were limited in our amount of product samples available, we had to limit the amount of respondents in our sample. We consider this as a limitation because if we would have had the opportunity to interview a lot more respondents, the significance level of our tests would have been much higher and we would have been able to give Nora advice with more certainty. As mentioned above, we have opted for a non-probability sample. We have sought respondents within our acquaintances and this causes the important limitation that we might overweigh these subgroups in our population, because they were more readily accessible. The people we have interviewed have a large probability to be situated all in the same income class, geographic region, education level and so on. This can lead to an important distortion in our research results. The reason why we only have contacted people in our near environment is because of the fact that we were limited in time and resources to collect the data. Due to circumstances, we only had one week to collect the data from 130 respondents. It is important for Nora to be aware of this limitation, especially when generalizing our result to the complete Belgian market. In our survey we always have opted to use five-point Likert scales as we already explained. The main reason for this was because, in view of the statistical analysis, this would be more convenient. A potential disadvantage of this choice may be that the respondents could not indicate their exact suitable level of preference. In order to attain a more accurate reflection of the respondents real preferences, it would be more appropriate to use continuous scales. For example, when the respondents want to give a score of three and a half, they do not need to choose between the value of 3 and 4, which is the case right now. For the research question concerning the willingness to pay (RQ 11) we have used a price benchmark. Some aspects of the calculation of this benchmark require more explanation. We have decided to provide our respondents with a benchmark in order to give them an idea of the average current price of similar products. First of all, we have calculated the benchmark based on the prices of similar products, coming from only one store (Match Leuven). This has a major influence on the average price, because the price for the same product can differ over stores. Second, we only have included major brands in our benchmark and not the private labels, for example. Again, this has a major influence on the average price level. Furthermore, we have made sure to include similar products within all the different product categories we have suggested in the questionnaire. We have calculated the benchmark over all these different categories, so this also has an influence. In conclusion, the benchmark which we have calculated may not be representative for the considered product categories and has to handle with care. Nevertheless, it can be interesting for Nora to know whether a potential consumer is willing to pay more or less than a given price. Another important remark concerning this benchmark is that, by giving the respondents an average price, they might have been influenced by the direction we have given them. If no benchmark would have been given, the answers would probably have been more diverse. A last limitation we would like to highlight is one concerning the questionnaire. In order to interrogate the respondents, we have translated the English questionnaire into a Dutch one. As we already have explained above, this was because all our respondents were Dutch speaking. We have to be aware that a translation never is Team 7
17
a perfect copy of the original text and some questions in the English version could be interpreted in another way than the parallel questions in the Dutch version. To minimize the problem that respondents would interpret the questions differently, we have decided to use the Dutch questionnaire for all our respondents.
Conclusion
Nora wishes to launch the Cross Over product. In order to help them to optimize their marketing mix, we have effectuated a marketing research, focusing on certain aspects of Product, Price and Place. Based on the marketing research we have done, and given the limitations of its setup and the significance level of the obtained results, we can conclude as follows: 1. 2. Product: Nora should work on the texture of the caramel. Further research is necessary, but the stickiness of the caramel seems to be a possibility for amelioration. Packaging, as a part of the Product: The actual packaging closure mechanism and color can be maintained. Liking the packaging tends to be more important to determine the intention to buy, than the price level. Price: Although the price level tends to be less important in the determination of the intention to buy, a price slightly under the 1.86 benchmark seems appropriate. Place: Although the perceived product category does not influence the intention to buy, its preferable to position the Cross Over product within the candy bar segment.
3. 4.
References
Trochim, W. M. K. 2006. Non probability sampling. Research Methods Knowledge Base. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampnon.php. Latest revised October 2006. Breugelmans, E. 2010. Marketing Management, 3rd Year Bachelor TEW. McGraw-Hill Custom Publishing.
1
Team 7
18
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Thank you for being engaged in our research. Your input is very important to us and it will only take about 10 minutes to fill in this questionnaire. Please note that there are no wrong or right answers, we are just interested in your opinion. It is important to follow exactly the order of questions and to read carefully the instructions. Many thanks for helping us. The research team
General questions 1) Do you ever eat candy bars, chocolate, cookies or ginger cakes ? o Yes o No We show you a prototype of the package of the Cross Over product. For questions 2 to 4 it is important to look carefully at the package. Please tick your answer clearly. 2) Which score would you give the colour of the package? 1 = totally not attractive, 3 = neutral, 5 = very attractive
3) Which score would you give the closure mechanism of the package? 1 = completely not easy to use, 3 = neutral, 5 = very easy to use
4) Which score would you give to the size of the package? 1 = very low score, 3 = neutral score, 5 = very high score
Next we show you a prototype of the product itself. For the next questions it is important to look carefully at this prototype. Please do not taste it yet. 5) Which score would you give to the overall look of the Cross Over product ? 1 = very low, 3= neutral, 5 = very high
6) How much are you willing to pay for this product (the package with 6 Cross Over products) ? The price of other similar products is 1,86 for a package of 6. euro 7) Based on which criteria would you tend to buy the Cross Over product? Only tick one answer, please. If you have several possible answers, tick the most appropriate. o the package
Team 7
19
o the price o none o other criteria Now you can taste the product and answer the following questions. 8) I would buy the Cross Over product based on the existing balance between chocolate covering, biscuit and caramel. 1 = totally disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = totally agree
9) I would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the caramel. 1 = totally disagree, 3= neutral, 5 = totally agree
10) I would buy the Cross Over product because of the texture of the biscuit. 1 = totally disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = totally agree
11) What is your global appreciation score for the Cross Over product ? 1 = very low, 3 = neutral, 5 = very high
12) In which product category do you think this product belongs?. Only tick one answer, please. If you have several possible answers, tick the most appropriate. Candy bars (Mars, Twix, Bounty, ) Chocolate (Cte dOr, Toblerone,) Cookies (waffles, biscuits,) Ginger cakes = ontbijtkoeken (Petit Djeuner, cereal bars, )
13) In which outlet type do you expect the Cross Over product most likely to be available ? Only tick one answer, please. If you have several possible answers, tick the most appropriate. o The grey channel (outlets where the sale of food and drinks is no core activity, e.g. IKEA, petrol station, newspaper kiosk, ) o Specialized outlet (E.g. Candy shop, Praline, Bakery, Bio-store) o Supermarket (E.g. Grocery store = the small, independent supermarket, Discounter, Super/hypermarket) 14) I would buy the Cross Over product. 1 = totally disagree, 3= neutral, 5 = totally agree.
Demographic factors 15) In which age category do you find yourself ?

Team 7
20
12 15 years 16 18 years 19 25 years 26 40 years 41 60 years 16) What is your gender? Male Female Thank you for participating in our research. Please make sure you have answered all questions clearly. Thank you for your time.
Team 7
21
Appendix B: Output of the tests in SPSS

B1: ANOVA test 1
Post Hoc Tests
Homogeneous Subsets Team 7
22
Team 7
23
B2: ANOVA test 2
Post Hoc Tests
Team 7
24
Homogeneous Subsets
Team 7
25
B3: Paired-Sample-t-Test 1
Team 7
26
B4: One-Sample-t-Test 1
Team 7
27
B5: Chi-Square Test for Independence 1
Team 7
28
Graph 100% 90% 80% 70% 61,50% 60% 58,80% 55,00%
% buyer
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12-15 16-18 19-25 26-40 41-60 25,00%
33,30%
Age category
Team 7
29
Team 7
30
B7: Independent-Sample-t-Test 1
Team 7
31
Graph
Team 7
32
100%
96,20%
% of people who perceive the 'Cross Over' product as a candy bar (not a cookie)
90% 80% 69,60% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12-15 16-18 16 19-25 72,00% 66,70%
84,60%
26-40
41-60
Age category
Team 7
33
Team 7
34
B10: Independent-Sample-t-Test 2
Team 7
35
B11: One-Sample-t-Test 2
Team 7
36
B12: Chi-Square Test for Goodness of Fit 1 est

Frequencies
Graph
60 49 respondents
50
Observed amount of the criteria
40
30
24 respondents
20
10
The price
The package
Team 7

Marketing Research Report: Introduction of The Cross Over' Product Into The Market

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Marketing Research Report: Introduction of The Cross Over' Product Into The Market

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Marketing Research Report

Introduction of the Cross Over product into the market