Jaipuria Institute of Management,

Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar

Lucknow – 226010

Academic Year 2022-23

Batch 2021-23
Trimester 4th
Programme PGDM-FS
(PGDM / PGDM-FS / PGDM-RM)
Name of Course Marketing analytics
Section
Name of Faculty Prof. Puneet Rai

Nature of Submission Project Report

(Assignment / Project Report)
Topic of Assignment / Project SPSS Project report

Deadline for Submission 8th October,2022-11:59 PM

Group/ Learning Team Number -
Maximum Marks Allotted

Contribution of Group/LT members in the Assignment/Project

Sl. Name & Enrollment Contribution Signature

No. Number of Student

1 Subham Gupta Whole Project

JL21FS028
2 Hera Javed Whole Project
JL21FS009
3 Mrinalika Jain Whole Project
JL21FS015
4 Shivangi Gupta Whole Project
JL21FS025
5 Mohammed Ayaad Siddiqui Whole Project
JL21FS014
Date of receiving at PMC: Signature of PMC Staff:
Penalty [Marks to be deducted (if any)]:

Marketing Analytics
Q1. Do different promotions differ in their effectiveness across whole market? Which promotion
do you recommend if you have to select one promotion across whole market? (You are expected
to answer this question treating whole market as a Single Market).

Ans-

Descriptives
Sales in thousands
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
1 172 58.10 16.551 1.262 55.61 60.59 31 100
2 188 47.29 15.127 1.103 45.12 49.47 17 89

3 188 55.36 16.789 1.224 52.95 57.78 22 96

Total 548 53.45 16.772 .716 52.05 54.86 17 100

ANOVA
Sales in thousands
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 11532.133 2 5766.066 22.076 .000
Within Groups 142347.634 545 261.188
Total 153879.766 547

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable:
Sales in thousands

Tukey HSD
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
(I) Three different types (J) Three different Difference (I- Std. Lower Upper
of promotion types of promotion J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
1 2 10.806 *
1.705 .000 6.80 14.81
3 2.737 1.705 .244 -1.27 6.74
2 1 -10.806 *
1.705 .000 -14.81 -6.80
3 -8.069 *
1.667 .000 -11.99 -4.15
3 1 -2.737 1.705 .244 -6.74 1.27
2 8.069* 1.667 .000 4.15 11.99
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Interpretation -
To assess the market-wide impact of three different methods of promotion one way ANOVA is
used. In these sales (ratio) is dependent and promotion (nominal) is independent. This test does
not take the market's size into account.
The descriptive table shows the average (mean) for each type of promotion.
P1 - 58
P2 - 47
P3 - 55
This indicates that the three promotions had different effects on sales. When the significance
between the groups in the ANOVA table is checked, it is less than 0.05, indicating a significant
difference between the three promotions.
We can observe from the multiple comparisons table that Promotions 1 and 3 do not differ
significantly from one another, however Promotion 2 differs from 1 and 3 because the
significance threshold is less than 0.05.
We can infer from the boxplot graph that 1 and 3 are close to and more effective than 2, which
has the lowest effectiveness. Therefore, promotion type 1 would be proposed if only one sort
of promotion was needed. The graph indicates that it is most effective.

Q2. Does the effectiveness of promotion type varies across different weeks?

Ans-

Between-Subjects Factors
N
Three different types of 1 172
promotion 2 188
3 188
Week of a month 1 137
2 137
3 137
4 137

As
a result, we performed a two-way ANOVA in which the sales volume was the dependent
variable and the week and the promotion were the independent variables. For the first
promotion, we only have 172 data; for the second and third promos taken together, we have
188 data. A month consists of 137 weeks in total.
Dependent Variable:
Sales in thousands
 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Three different types of
promotion Week of a month Mean Std. Deviation N
1 1 58.26 16.843 43
2 57.00 16.541 43
3 58.70 16.421 43
4 58.44 16.930 43
Total 58.10 16.551 172
2 1 47.72 14.404 47
2 47.53 14.845 47
3 47.66 15.962 47
4 46.26 15.689 47
Total 47.29 15.127 188
3 1 55.81 18.112 47
2 55.91 15.665 47
3 54.38 17.227 47
4 55.34 16.560 47
Total 55.36 16.789 188
Total 1 53.80 17.005 137
2 53.38 16.131 137
3 53.43 17.042 137
4 53.20 17.072 137
Total 53.45 16.772 548

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa,b

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Sales in thousands Based on Mean .584 11 536 .842
Based on Median .363 11 536 .970
Based on Median and with .363 11 521.086 .970
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean .535 11 536 .880
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Dependent variable:
Sales in thousands
b. Design:
Intercept + Promotion + Week + Promotion * Week
 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
Type III Sum of Partial Eta
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected Model 11742.714a 11 1067.519 4.026 .000 .076
Intercept 1570700.337 1 1570700.337 5923.124 .000 .917
Promotion 11532.133 2 5766.066 21.744 .000 .075
Week 25.473 3 8.491 .032 .992 .000
Promotion * Week 184.027 6 30.671 .116 .995 .001
Error 142137.052 536 265.181
Total 1719612.000 548
Corrected Total 153879.766 547
a. R Squared = .076 (Adjusted R Squared = .057)
The results of the between-subject effect test indicate that there is no statistically significant
relationship between week and promotion. The answer is that the promotion week's
significance value is more than 0.05.

Q3. Will you suggest use of different promotions across different market sizes (small, medium and
large)? Which promotion type do you recommend on the basis of size of the market (Use interaction of
‘promotion’ and ‘marketSize’ to answer this question)?

Ans-

ANOVA
Sales in thousands Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Bayes Factora
Between Groups 11532.133 2 5766.066 22.076 .000 2894978.503
Within Groups 142347.634 545 261.188
Total 153879.766 547
a. Bayes factor: JZS

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
Three different types of
promotion MarketSize1 Mean Std. Deviation N
1 SMALL 60.10 5.046 20
 MEDIUM 47.66 8.048 96
LARGE 75.29 15.442 56
Total 58.10 16.551 172
2 SMALL 50.75 5.802 16
MEDIUM 39.07 8.807 108
LARGE 60.30 15.776 64
Total 47.29 15.127 188
3 SMALL 59.58 5.266 24
MEDIUM 45.46 8.112 116
LARGE 77.19 14.464 48
Total 55.36 16.789 188
Total SMALL 57.40 6.631 60
MEDIUM 43.96 9.057 320
LARGE 70.12 17.076 168
Total 53.45 16.772 548

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
Type III Sum of Partial Eta
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected Model 91605.185a 8 11450.648 99.108 .000 .595
Intercept 1121838.449 1 1121838.449 9709.755 .000 .947
Promotion 8475.433 2 4237.717 36.678 .000 .120
MarketSize1 79259.309 2 39629.655 343.003 .000 .560
Promotion * MarketSize1 2114.018 4 528.505 4.574 .001 .033
Error 62274.582 539 115.537
Total 1719612.000 548
Corrected Total 153879.766 547
a. R Squared = .595 (Adjusted R Squared = .589)
Interpretation
A two-way ANOVA is used to determine which sort of marketing is more successful in which
market size. Sales is the dependent variable, with the promotion and market size acting as
independent factors.
When a promotion's significance and market size are both smaller than 0.05, it suggests that
both factors are having an impact on sales.
We can determine which promotion increases sales the most using the graph. For the small and
medium market, promotion type 1 is beneficial. In a large market, promotion type 3 is effective.
Additionally, promotion 2 is useless in any market.
So, Promotion 1 – Small and Medium market size
Promotion 3 – Large Market

Q4. Which of the variables (MarketSize, promotion, AgeOfStore, Week) have more influence on sale
(SalesInThousands).

Ans-

Variables Entered/Removeda
 Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 MarketSize1, . Enter
dw3, dp1, Years
of existence of
store, dw2,
dummy_promoti
on2b
a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
b. Tolerance = .000 limit reached.

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 .546a
.298 .290 14.131 .330
a. Predictors: (Constant), MarketSize1, dw3, dp1, Years of existence of store, dw2,
dummy_promotion2
b. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 45853.229 6 7642.205 38.272 .000b
Residual 108026.537 541 199.679
Total 153879.766 547
a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
b. Predictors: (Constant), MarketSize1, dw3, dp1, Years of existence of store, dw2,
dummy_promotion2
 Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 28.670 2.742 10.455 .000
dw2 -.161 1.479 -.004 -.109 .914
dw3 -.394 1.479 -.010 -.267 .790
dp1 -11.380 1.492 -.322 -7.628 .000
dummy_promotion2 -1.757 1.495 -.050 -1.175 .240
Years of existence of store .089 .092 .035 .964 .335
MarketSize1 13.049 .999 .478 13.060 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands

Excluded Variablesa
Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 dw1 . b
. . . .000
a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), MarketSize1, dw3, dp1, Years of existence of store,
dw2, dummy_promotion2

Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 30.03 69.96 53.45 9.156 548
Residual -31.903 32.004 .000 14.053 548
Std. Predicted Value -2.558 1.803 .000 1.000 548
Std. Residual -2.258 2.265 .000 .995 548
a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands

Th
e aforementioned regression model evaluates the strength of the association between sales, a
dependent variable, and independent variables like market size, the number of years the store
has been open, and dummy variables representing various types of sales promotions.
Multiple regression may only be used when the dependent variable has a ratio/interval scale, as
in the model above, but the independent variable, such as the sales promotion, is nominal in
nature. To accommodate this, dummy variables were generated.
As a result of performing multiple regression, we can observe that the Adjusted R square value
is only 0.290, indicating that the independent variables are not affecting sales in any way.
The coefficient table also leads us to the conclusion that the store's sales are impacted by the
size of the market. Therefore, in order to maximize sales and reduce losses, the sales manager
of the individual stores would like to expand their markets.