This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Introduction

CPResorts has spent a considerable amount of money on promoting the Forster resort as an “upmarket” complex appealing to families. This report will address the main indicators of whether the resort has been successful in its promotion include the types of customers at CPResorts Forster with analysis of their income, age and size of booking group, the length of stay and expenditure of each customer per day. This report will also address whether CPResorts has been successful in meeting their own key performance indicators (KPI’s) stated in the internal business report. The analysis will be taken with a sample of 200 observations of group bookings over the last twelve months, varying in group size, into the resort. The analysis will utilise descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing. This analysis will assume that the distribution is normal for the sample data given.

**Analysis of Performance Indicators
**

Num ber of People per Booking Group 6 People; 10% 5 People; 10% 2 People; 34% 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 4 People; 34% 3 People; 12% 6 People

Figure 1: Number of People per Booking Group

Families have been attracted into the resort, as seen in the sample in figure one, 66% of the bookings had number of people per booking group as greater than two. This suggests that 66% of bookings came from families, if we assume groups greater than two people are families. This evidence is further reinforced by an observable positive relationship (correlation) between age of the person making the booking and the number of people in the booking group i.e. the older the person making the booking, the more people in the booking group. This piece of statistical evidence suggests that people are bringing their families into the resort.

Age of People Booking

40 35 30 Frequency 25 20 15 10 5 0 Age

75 M or e 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Furthermore the analysis revealed a positive correlation between age and length of stay (older the person making the booking the longer the length of stay) and therefore a positive correlation between age, income and expenditure.

Figure 2: Ages of Person Booking

further illustrated by figure two which suggests that the person making the booking was more likely to be for family and extended family and less likely to be young people booking with a group of friends.The average age of the person making the group booking is 47. as the average income of the customer is 0. Therefore CPResorts has been successful in fulfilling its objective of the majority of the customers being from a high income family creating an “upmarket” feel.89 suggesting some variation in daily expenditure.79. The types of customers attracted into the resort have been relatively wealthy families. as they were classified as family income is greater than $60. Seven Nights) The sample size given to DECS was a sample size of 200. This would suggest that 69%. this variation was not extremely large with those descriptive statistic results.67 years old.000 represented by 0. The range was $85. suggesting quite a high average daily expenditure per person per day on top of accommodation costs. an overwhelming majority of the group bookings are from relatively wealthy families with incomes greater than $60.5 . as it would not have been possible to accurately compare group expenditure above accommodation when the length and size of different groups varied.43. This analysis has taken into account the large sample size and statisticians have used appropriate statistical measures to calculate and test the population proportion in the sample rather than simply sample testing.5 H1 : p > 0. however. this sample size is large enough for DECS to assume that the sample is normally distributed and utilise the Central Limit Theorem. This demonstrates that the firm has been relatively successful in attracting families to the resort. The mean expenditure of a single person above accommodation costs was $74. median $68 and a standard deviation of 22.69. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) – Statistical Analysis • At least 50% of their customers stay for a full week (i. Amount Spent by each Customer per day Above Accommodation Costs 50 40 Frequency 30 20 10 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Amount Spent by each Customer per day 120 130 More Figure 3: Amount Spent by each Customer per Day The expenditure analysis of the average customer was done with data on expenditure per person per day rather than looking at group expenditure per day. The two hypothesis set by DECS were: H0 : p = 0.000. This action was taken.e.000 1 or family income lass than $60.

5(1− 0.07682 σ 46. DECs determined that this measure of key performance indicator should be done with the assumption that per “customer” is not per person. The average customer spends at least $260 per day in excess of accommodation costs.3897 Since the P Value is greater than the 5% significance level and falls within our rejection region.4684 n 200 Z = -7. Therefore DECs has concluded that CPResorts has not met its second Key Performance Indicators.This statistical analysis has demonstrated that CPResorts has been successful in meeting the key performance indicator that “At least 50% of their customers stay for a full week (i.07682 < Zα = 1. but the customer is the person who made the booking. Seven Nights” as stated in their business plan.05 = 1. The sample proportion was: x 102 ρ= = = 0.5)/ 200 P (Z > 0. .05 = 1.51 n 200 z= ρ −Ρ = 0.283) = 0. Z= X − 260 236.5 – 0. Therefore the rejection region is: Z > Zα = Z0.645 In the sample given 102 out of total number of 200 stayed for the full week.645 The standard deviation of the sample is 46.As this was regarded as a “standard” problem and hence required a 5% significance level.7469. • The report above has analysed spending per person per day and found that an average daily spending in excess of accommodation costs was $74.5 = 0. Hence we do not reject the null hypothesis H0.7469 − 260 = = −7. This KPI would be most appropriately tested through hypothesis testing with the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis being: H0 : μ = $260 H1 : μ > $260 Keeping the significance level consistent with our previous hypothesis testing method: Z > Zα = Z0.645 Since Z is less than Zα therefore the null hypothesis was rejected and concludes that the average spending was less than $260 per person.e.1103 = 0.282842712 Ρ(1−Ρ)/ n 0.43.51− 0.4684 and a mean of $236.

even with the assumption that the “customer” was defined as only the person making the booking.43 if it was calculated as per person per day. . with 64% being in those categories. The resort has been Able to Meet its First Key Performance Indicator with more than 50% of the customers staying the full week from the sample statistic and taking into consideration population proportion. income. if the firm wishes to achieve its second key performance indicator. The resort has been Unable to Meet its Second Key Performance Indicator of each customer spending at least $260 per day in the resort. group size and expenditure and would be in CPResort’s best interest to market to an older.Executive Summary This report utilised the data provided of 200 recent bookings over the last 12 months and was able to conclude that the types of customers attracted to the resort has been from an older demographic with 88% of the person making the booking being over the age of 40.74 and the amount is $74. high income demographic. The average spending per customer per day was $236. Hypothesis Testing and in particular testing the population proportion with the sample proportion. The Key Performance Indicators were measured with Central Limit Theorem. Customers commonly came in either groups of two or four. There was a positive correlation with age. Therefore the data for measure the second key performance indicator needs to be clarified and recorded in another format in future testing. whilst 66% of bookings were for groups greater than two in size suggesting families.