QUESTION 1 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).

Descriptives
Sales in thousands

N Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Deviation Mean

Lower Bound Upper Bound

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

(I) Three different (J) Three different Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
types of promotion types of promotion Difference (I- Error
Lower Upper
J)
Bound Bound

2 10.806* 1.705 .000 6.80 14.81

1
3 2.737 1.705 .244 -1.27 6.74

1 -10.806* 1.705 .000 -14.81 -6.80

2
3 -8.069* 1.667 .000 -11.99 -4.15

1 -2.737 1.705 .244 -6.74 1.27

3
2 8.069* 1.667 .000 4.15 11.99

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Sales in thousands

Tukey HSD

Three different types of N Subset for alpha = 0.05

promotion
1 2

2 188 47.29

3 188 55.36

1 172 58.10

Sig. 1.000 .239

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 182.346.

b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group
sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
INTERPRETATION
In order to find out that whether promotions differ in their effectiveness across whole market,
we have used one-way Annova test where promotion (nominal) is independent variable and
sales (ratio) is dependent variable. In order to conduct this test, whole market is considered as
one single market.
After seeing the descriptive table, we can see the mean sales from different promotions
which are as follows:
P1 58

P2 47

P3 55

This indicates that there is difference in sales from the three promotions. Also, after seeing
the significant level between groups as 0.000 which is less than 0.05, we can say that
promotions differ in their effectiveness across whole market.
In the multiple comparisons table, we can see that there is no significant difference between
promotion 1 and 3 but promotion 2 has a difference because the significance level between
promotion 1 and 3 is greater than 0.05 which is 0.244.
From the boxplot graph above, we can say that promotion 2 is least effective than promotion
1 and 3 as they are closer. So, I would recommend promotion 1 across whole market as it has
the highest level of effectiveness.
QUESTION 2 Does the effectiveness of promotion type varies across different weeks?

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

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
Three different types of Week of a Mean Std. N
promotion month Deviation
1 58.26 16.843 43
2 57.00 16.541 43
1 3 58.70 16.421 43
4 58.44 16.930 43
Total 58.10 16.551 172
1 47.72 14.404 47
2 47.53 14.845 47
2 3 47.66 15.962 47
4 46.26 15.689 47
Total 47.29 15.127 188
1 55.81 18.112 47
2 55.91 15.665 47
3 3 54.38 17.227 47
4 55.34 16.560 47
Total 55.36 16.789 188
1 53.80 17.005 137
2 53.38 16.131 137
Total 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
Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
F df1 df2 Sig.
.584 11 536 .842
Tests the null hypothesis that the error
variance of the dependent variable is
equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Promotion + Week
+ Promotion * Week

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
Source Type III Sum df Mean F Sig. Partial Eta
of Squares Square Squared
Corrected Model 11742.714 a
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 *
184.027 6 30.671 .116 .995 .001
Week
Error 142137.052 536 265.181
Total 1719612.000 548
Corrected Total 153879.766 547
a. R Squared = .076 (Adjusted R Squared = .057)
INTERPRETATION

In order to find out that whether effectiveness of promotion type varies across different
weeks, we have used two-way Annova test where promotion (nominal) and weeks (nominal)
are independent variables and sales (ratio) is dependent variable.
After analysing the above table, we can see that the significance level of promotion and week
is greater than 0.05 which is 0.995 which indicates that they both are not jointly impacting
sales. So, I will not suggest different promotions across different weeks.
QUESTION 3 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 ‘market Size’ to answer this question)?

Between-Subjects Factors
Value N
Label
1 172
Three different types of
2 188
promotion
3 188
1 SMALL 60
MarketSize1 2 MEDIUM 320
3 LARGE 168

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

Levene's Test of Equality of Error

Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
 F df1 df2 Sig.
31.191 8 539 .000
Tests the null hypothesis that the error
variance of the dependent variable is
equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Promotion +
MarketSize1 + Promotion * MarketSize1

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
Source Type III Sum df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
of Squares 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 *
2114.018 4 528.505 4.574 .001 .033
MarketSize1
Error 62274.582 539 115.537
Total 1719612.000 548
Corrected Total 153879.766 547
a. R Squared = .595 (Adjusted R Squared = .589)
INTERPRETATION

In order to find out that whether there is use of different promotions across different market
sizes, we have used two-way Annova test where promotion (nominal) and market size
(nominal) are independent variables and sales (ratio) is dependent variable.
After analysing the above table, we can see that the significance level of promotion and
market size are less than 0.05 which indicates that they both are jointly impacting sales. So, I
will suggest different promotions across different market sizes.
From the box plot graph above, we can suggest that which type of promotion is effective in
which market.
 Promotion type 1 is effective for small and medium market.
 Promotion type 3 can benefit the large market.
 There is no effect of promotion 2 in any of the markets.

QUESTION 4 Which of the variables (Market Size, promotion, Age of Store, Week) have
more influence on sale (SalesInThousands).

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .763 a
.582 .576 10.918
a. Predictors: (Constant), Years of existence of store, w4,
medium, p2, w3, small, p3, w2

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 89633.154 8 11204.144 93.998 .000b
1 Residual 64246.612 539 119.196
Total 153879.766 547
a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
b. Predictors: (Constant), Years of existence of store, w4, medium, p2, w3,
small, p3, w2

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 74.384 1.437 51.778 .000
small -14.086 1.666 -.262 -8.453 .000
 medium -26.659 1.049 -.784 -25.414 .000
p2 -10.789 1.153 -.306 -9.357 .000
p3 -1.074 1.156 -.030 -.930 .353
w2 -.423 1.319 -.011 -.321 .748
w3 -.372 1.319 -.010 -.282 .778
w4 -.606 1.319 -.016 -.459 .646
Years of existence of
.070 .071 .028 .984 .326
store
a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands

Excluded Variablesa
Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Collinearity
Correlation Statistics
Tolerance
1 large .000b .000 1.000 .000 2.372E-014
a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Years of existence of store, w4,
medium, p2, w3, small, p3, w2

INTERPRETATION

The above regression model assesses the strength of the relationship between sales which is a
dependent variable and independent variable such as market size, years of existence of the
store, promotion, dummy variable of different types of sales promotions.
We can only use multiple regression when the dependent variable is in ratio/interval scale
i.e., in the above model but the independent variable such as sales promotion is nominal in
nature and hence the dummy variables are created to satisfy the above situation.
After running multiple, regression we can see that the value of Adjusted R square is just
0.290 which indicates that the independent variables are not having any effect on sales.