Data collection methodology

As explained in the previous chapter, the case study with the Soft Drink Co. involved field visits, direct observations and interviews to develop a RDM. In the process of validating the RDM, weekly sales data were collected. The accuracy of the data was first checked by comparing with the promotional calendar and, whenever necessary, clarified through discussion with the principal or key informant in the case company. The principal or key informant is the person in the case company who is best informed about the data used in this research (Voss et al., 2002).

The following characteristics were collected from the four retailers along with the weekly sales data.

 Types of promotion

 Size of promotion (includes display location, number of stores)

 Duration of promotion (number of promotional weeks)

 Price discount

 Feature (advertisements-any sports events/coupons)

 Special days/holidays

 Christmas/Easter

 Local weather (temperature)

 Unplanned in-store promotion (if available)

 Timing of the promotion

 Product life cycle (new or established products)

 Customers‘ preference (faster moving or slower moving products)

Although most of the information could be obtained directly from the company‘s promotional calendar, some other pieces of information (such as unplanned in-store promotions, features, and special days) needed further clarification from the principal informant of the case company. Table 8-1 shows the types of promotions and the number of promotions over a period of 3 years (2005-2007) at the four different retailers (referred in this thesis as R1, R2, R3 and R4).

In Table 8-1, the last column ‗total promotions‘ represents the total number of promotions offered by each of the four retailers for some common products. Some retailers offered more promotions for 2ltr bottles while others offered more promotions for 500ml bottles. For example, R1 offered 200 promotions for 2ltr bottles in total during 2005-2007 whereas the other three retailers offered 202, 135 and 195 promotions respectively. For 6-packs 330ml cans, R1 offered 195 promotions, R2 offered 243 promotions, R3 offered 172 promotions and R4 offered 215 promotions. For 500ml bottles, R2 offered promotion throughout the year 2006; this is represented as ‗Y‘ in Table 8-1. R3 did not offer any promotion for 500ml bottles. R1 and R4 offered 84 and 92 promotions respectively on 500ml bottles.

153

Table 8-1 Number of promotions at retail stores’ for leading products Type and number of promotions

Total promotions

‘bogof’/half price 2 for £ 3 for £ Other promotion

Products R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 2lt-P1 12 10 2 9 4 11 4 7 - - 3 - 2 1 5 - 18 22 14 16 2lt-P2 11 10 2 9 4 11 4 7 - - 4 - 2 1 5 - 17 22 15 16 2lt-P3 11 6 - 9 4 8 - 7 - - - - 2 1 - - 17 15 -- 16 2lt-P4 11 10 - 9 4 11 - 7 - - - - 2 1 - - 17 22 -- 16 2lt-P5 11 6 - 9 4 8 - 7 - - - - 2 1 - - 17 15 -- 16 2lt-P6 - - - 4 10 4 13 8 2 8 6 - - 5 - 12 12 17 19 2lt-P7 - - - 4 16 4 12 8 2 8 6 - - 5 - 12 18 17 18 2lt-P8 9 7 - 8 4 12 4 7 - - 3 - 1 - 5 - 14 19 12 15 2lt-P9 9 7 - 8 4 12 4 7 - - 3 - 2 - 5 - 15 19 12 15 2lt-P10 9 - - 8 4 - 4 7 - - 3 - 2 - 5 - 15 -- 12 15 2lt-P11 9 7 - 7 4 12 4 5 - - 3 - 2 - 5 - 15 19 12 12 2lt-P12 9 7 - 5 4 12 4 5 - - 3 - 3 - 5 - 16 19 12 10 2lt-P13 9 - - 5 4 - 4 6 - - 3 - 2 - 5 - 15 -- 12 11 Total 110 70 4 86 52 123 40 97 16 4 41 12 22 5 50 0 200 202 135 195 6pk-P1 2 4 - - - 9 3 - 1 6 1 - 1 2 - - 4 21 4 -- 6pk-P2 11 8 2 9 4 9 8 7 3 - 4 - - - 1 - 18 17 15 16 6pk-P3 9 8 2 - 5 9 8 - 3 - 4 - - - 1 - 17 17 15 -- 6pk-P4 9 7 2 14 5 9 8 6 3 - 2 - - - 1 - 17 16 13 20 6pk-P5 9 7 2 11 5 9 7 6 3 - 1 - - - 1 - 17 16 11 17 6pk-P6 4 4 2 3 1 9 5 18 4 6 2 - 4 - - - 9 19 9 21 6pk-P7 4 4 2 3 1 9 5 18 4 6 2 - - - - - 9 19 9 21 6pk-P8 4 4 2 3 - 9 5 18 4 6 2 - - - - - 8 10 4 21

Type and number of promotions

Total promotions

‘bogof’/half price 2 for £ 3 for £ Other promotion

Products R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 6pk-P9 11 8 2 10 4 9 8 6 - - 4 - - - 1 - 15 17 15 16 6pk-P10 11 8 2 10 5 9 8 6 - - 4 - - - 1 - 16 17 15 16 6pk-P11 11 8 2 10 4 9 8 6 - - 4 - - - 1 - 15 17 15 16 6pk-P12 11 7 2 11 4 9 9 6 - - 2 - - - 1 - 15 16 14 17 6pk-P13 11 7 2 11 4 9 9 6 - - 2 - - - 1 - 15 16 14 17 6pk-P14 11 7 2 11 5 9 9 6 - - 2 - - - 1 - 16 16 14 17 Total 118 91 26 106 47 126 100 109 25 24 36 0 5 2 10 0 195 243 172 215 500ml -P1 - - - - 7 Y - 16 - - - 7 -- -- 16 500ml -P2 - - - - 7 Y - 16 - - - 7 -- -- 16 500ml -P3 6 - - 1 8 Y - 11 - - - 14 -- -- 12 500ml -P4 6 - - 1 8 Y - 11 - - - 14 -- -- 12 500ml -P5 6 - - 1 8 Y - 11 - - - 14 -- -- 12 500ml -P6 6 - - 1 8 Y - 11 - - - 14 -- -- 12 500ml -P7 6 - - 1 8 Y - 11 - - - - - - 14 -- -- 12 Total 30 0 0 5 54 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 -- -- 92 Juice-P1 - 5 - - 3 - 3 - - 4 - - 1 1 1 - 4 10 4 -- Juice-P2 - 5 - - 3 - 3 - - 4 - - 1 1 1 - 4 10 4 -- Juice-P3 - - - - 8 11 19 15 - 2 7 - - - 8 13 26 15 Juice-P4 - - - - 8 11 19 15 - 2 7 - - - 8 13 26 15 Total 0 10 0 0 22 22 44 30 0 12 14 0 2 2 2 0 24 46 60 30

155 Some retailers offered more bogof while others gave more 2-for and 3-for promotions. Figure 8-1 shows the percentage of each type of promotions offered by different retailers. The retailer R1 offered more bogof and half-price promotions (51 percent) while the retailers R2, R3 and R4 offered more 2-for promotions. R1 offered less 3-for and other promotions (6 to 8 percent). R2 offered around 55% of 2-for promotions, which is the highest of all of its promotions. Nearly half of the promotions offered by R3 were 2-for promotions. R4 offered 61 percent of 2-for promotions. This percentage split of promotional types included only leading or major selling products.

Figure 8-1 Percentage of types of promotions offered by four retailers

Other details on promotions such as display location and percentage discount are different for different promotions and cannot be presented in a single table or figure. The presence or absence of these characteristics may affect sales. For example, bogof promotions may have a huge sales uplift while 3-for promotions may not have such a big impact on sales.

The data will be further analysed in chapters eight and nine through structural equation models and multiple linear regression models.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% R1 R2 R3 R4 others 3-for 2-for

bogof & half- price

(Hair et al., 2006) suggested that data should be cleared to be error free before using it for further analysis. For example, a lower (than average) sales figures during a promotional event may cause ambiguity either on the sales data or on the promotion calendar. In the case of Soft Drink sales data, such problems were solved by double checking the actual sales events with the principal informant. Careful cross-checking for any unusually high or low sales and discussions with the company officials ensured error free data.

Figure 8-2 Example of average sales during promotions at R2 for 2ltr bottles

For instance, in Figure 8-2, there were two instances of promotional sales exceeding 20000 units4 which prompted further enquires for such an unusually high demand. Though this particular promotion was mentioned as 2-for in the promotion calendar, it was later noted that those two sales were the 2-for promotions but with unusually low prices. The retailer R2 stuck to the previously agreed promotion type but reduced the price during the promotion. This resulted in unusually high sales in these two instances.

4

1unit represents a case of 24 or 48 cans or bottles 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Sa les un it s Promotion weeks bogof and half-

price 2-for (in-store)

157 To ensure error free data, sales of all leading products (2ltr pet bottles, 500ml pet bottles and 6-packs of 330ml cans) were plotted separately in graphs for each retailer. On analysing the graphs, unusual sales (either very high or very low) during promotions were identified. Such discrepancies were discussed with the Soft Drink Co. and clarified before they were used in structural equation models and multiple regression forecast models.