mad greeks paper

84
A MARKETING RESEARCH STUDY: TO DETERMINE THE BEER PREFERENCES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS Prepared for Mr. Patrick Coyle, Marketing Research Professor Mr. James Lee, Owner of Mad Greeks Prepared by Julie Goldman

Upload: julie-goldman

Post on 05-Aug-2015

70 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

A MARKETING RESEARCH STUDY:TO DETERMINE THE BEER PREFERENCES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

Prepared forMr. Patrick Coyle, Marketing Research Professor

Mr. James Lee, Owner of Mad Greeks

Prepared byJulie Goldman

August 2012

Table of Contents/List of illustrations

Section Title Page

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................3

Introduction......................................................................................................................................4Introduction..........................................................................................................................4Background..........................................................................................................................4Secondary Research.............................................................................................................5Research Objectives.............................................................................................................6General Objective Questions...............................................................................................6Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................7

The Research Method......................................................................................................................9Definition of the Population.................................................................................................9Population/Sample Size.......................................................................................................9Development of the Questionnaire......................................................................................9Data Collection Method.....................................................................................................11

Findings/Results.............................................................................................................................12Response Rate....................................................................................................................12Profile of the Sample.........................................................................................................12Data Summary...................................................................................................................13Findings.............................................................................................................................17Conclusions........................................................................................................................19Recommendations..............................................................................................................23

End Matter.....................................................................................................................................25Appendix A........................................................................................................................25Appendix B........................................................................................................................28Appendix C........................................................................................................................40Appendix D........................................................................................................................51Appendix E........................................................................................................................54

2 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This marketing research group that was formed in Patrick Coyle’s Market Research class

at Drexel University undertook a project for Mad Greeks to help determine the beer preferences

of college students in order to help them Mad Greeks manage inventory needs and increase sales.

Our The research questions asked were: what beers are consumers most likely to purchase, does

price impact consumer’s purchasing decisions and does providing an incentive to consumers

cause them to purchase more in quantity and more frequently.

The research method we used was an exploratory survey research study where a

questionnaire was distributed to 65 Drexel University students on or near campus. We asked

students how often they drink beer and how often they purchase it. We also asked them to

indicate how important various qualities of beers were including taste, price, quality, quantity,

alcohol content, light beer and full beer. We also asked them some questions regarding theirse

most recent beer purchases at Mad Greeks and also if they intend to purchase domestic, import

or craft beers in the next month. We then went on to asked consumers how likely they were to

partake in a current Mad Greeks promotion. and Finallythen we asked participants to list their

top three favorite beers. We used a convenience sampling method for this survey.

After viewing the findings, analyzing the data collected, and referencing our findings

with secondary research done that relates to the topic, we concluded that the top favorite beers

were Yuengling, Blue Moon, Victory, Heineken, Dogfish Head. Price sensitive consumers seem

to prefer quantity and light beer and were more likely to purchase domestic beers. Taste and

quality were the highest related rated variables tested and therefore we concluded that consumers

are value orientated and want high quality matched with a good price. Finally, the promotions

3 | P a g e

appear better received by high-spend consumers and those who have less recently made beer

purchases.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

This marketing research study was undertaken by a groupgroup from taking the course

Marketing Research at Drexel University; taught by Professor Patrick Coyle. The group

consisted of Jenn Cacace, Julie Goldman, Sungwan Jo, Alan Miller, Bryan Pham, and Maddie

Zelicoff. Mad Greeks is a restaurant located in University City, Philadelphia owned by James

Lee. The market research study was focused on exploring the marketing, psychological and

situational variables that influence the behavior behind the beer preferences of consumers. These

consumers are specifically Drexel college students ideally aged 21 years and older, however we

did also survey students under the age of 21. This research was done in an effort to increase the

profitability and to develop a greater understanding of the inventory needs for Mad Greeks.

Background

Mad Greeks, owned by James Lee, is a University City pizzeria that has been in

operation for over 35 years. They pride themselves on providing fresh food made from original

recipes containing genuine ingredients. They provide fast delivery and offer take out beer. Their

menu consists of pizza, sandwiches, burgers, salads, platters, wings and wraps. Mad Greeks sells

popular beers like Bud Light and Miller Light and also a selection of craft beers.

The nature of Mad Greeks competition is fierce as there are three direct competitors

located on the same block, and there are many more in a mile radius. Some of Mad Greeks

competitors are Ed’s Buffalo Wings & Pizza, Savas, Powelton Pizza, California Pizza, Drexel

4 | P a g e

Pizza, and Village Pizza. All run similar operations to Mad Greeks in terms of the menu

provided to consumers. Savas located next door to Mad Greeks also sells beer to their customers.

Secondary Research

By conducting secondary research on beer preferences, it provided us with a basis to

conduct our research on. We used an article from Mintel, a market research firm that provided us

with information on trends in beer choices and volume consumption. The article stated that the

amount of a particular type of beer that a person drinks during a 30-day time period has changed

over the past five years. Specifically “During February 2010- March 2011, consumers drank

more imported beer (5.6 drinks), regular domestic beer (5.1 drinks), microbrew beer (3.2 drinks),

and low-alcohol/no-alcohol beer (3.2 drinks) per month.”1 This research supports our findings.

The most important information that we gathered from this secondary source is that the imported

beer sector, specifically Corona and Heineken, has been increasingly growing by 15.5%. Most

importantly, these import companies have moved to developing craft beers, which have become

increasingly popular over the past years. “Microbrews/craft beers are a small but rapidly growing

segment of the beer category.” Craft beers have moved so far into the mainstream that some

national companies have entered the category. For example, Blue Moon was developed by Coors

in 1995.

Using the same article, we gathered information regarding beer purchasing behavior as

well. The key points that the article suggested was that consumers are usually very loyal to the

brands of beer they consume. However, consumers ages 21-24 have different purchasing

behaviors. These are people that are most likely to prefer a wide variety when shopping for beer.

1 Garima Goel-lal (November 2011). Beer: The Consumer - US - November 2011. Retrieved from http://academic.mintel.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/display/553330/#atom0.

5 | P a g e

This is obviously because that is the age where adults are not as experienced and are

experimenting with different types of beer. The article also said that, “since they have not yet

reached their earning potential, they are also most inclined (42%) to wait for sales promotions.”

This helped us with our research tremendously. It provided us with an understanding of what to

look for during our researching process.results our market research would provide.

Research Objectives

The main research objective of this study is to determine which brands of beer Mad

Greeks should stock and the quantities they should stock them in. We wanted to determine the

most popular beers, and if there are any beers Mad Greek doesn’t sell that they should begin to

base off the consumer preferences, which we gathered from our questionnaire. We also wanted

to determine what specifically motivates college students to buy specific types of beer. The

qualities that we looked at include price, taste, alcohol content, quantity, quality, light beer and

full beer. Finally, we wanted to determine if an incentive of some sort would entice consumers to

make purchases at Mad Greeks more frequently.  

General Objective Questions

We based our questionnaire on these specific research objective questions, which

encompassed our main research objective goals. The first question was about what beers are

consumers most likely to purchase. This question specifically helped us understand the beer

brand and type of preferences for college students. This question supported our conclusion on

what beers Mad Greeks should stock more of in their inventory.

The second question was whether prices impact consumer's purchasing decisions. This

question helped us understand whether price matters when college students make a beer

purchasing decision. It provided us with insight on what is most important for college students

6 | P a g e

when they make that choice, whether its price or not. Mad Greeks could than adjust their prices

based on our findings.

Lastly, our third question was about providing an incentive to consumers that can cause

them to purchase more in quantity and more frequently. This information helped us determine if

Mad Greeks should provide more or less promotions and if college students would value them.

By analyzing this information we were able to decide which promotions are favored and if

college students are even aware of them. Therefore, Mad Greeks could adjust its promotion

strategy according to our conclusions.

Limitations of the Study

The most obvious limitation that we faced is our relative inexperience in designing and

executing full-scale research projects. We worked to reduce the effect of this limitation by

working closely with Professor Coyle who is very experienced in this field and provided good

insights for managing the project. Another major limitation was the time allotted to complete the

project. We were tied to a 10-week timeline for honing the necessary skills for marketing

research and simultaneously executing this research for Mad Greeks. We do believe however

that the combined education and application of these skills vastly improved the quality of our

research, even done in such a short time.

Aside from these general limitations, we also had some concerns about our sample, given

that it was a convenience sample gathered mostly on or close to the premises of Mad Greeks and

skewed heavily toward male respondents. The high ratio of male to female respondents (3:1)

may be representative of the college-age beer drinking population that Mad Greeks draws

customers from, since beer consumption generally skews towards male. However, further

research is necessary to confirm this. Also, given that we intended to survey for the opinions and

7 | P a g e

preferences of beer drinking consumers that were close enough to reasonably be customer for the

establishment, a convenience sample was a fairly natural approach. However, because our survey

collection was hyper-localized to on or near the premises of Mad Greeks, our sample may

include a higher number of people that are already being satisfied by the beer service provided

there than actually exists in the population.

8 | P a g e

THE RESEARCH METHOD

Definition of the Population

Our research team used a convenience sampling method was used when distributing the

questionnaires. The surveys had male and female respondents; however 75% of the respondents

were male. This differs from a statistic offered from Drexel University stating that population to

have is an even split of 50% males and 50% females. The individuals surveyed were all Drexel

students but the only qualification to participate was that they were 18 years of age or older.

Population/Sample Size

The targeted sample size was 50 participants out of approximately 15,000 potential

undergraduate students and 1,300 potential graduate students. The students were selected by

frequenting populated locations on campus such as the library, Starbucks in the Pearlstein

building, and on Lancaster Walk. A total of 65 surveys were handed out and only one had to be

discounted because of incompleteness.

Development of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire for Mad Greeks Pizzeria was designed to clearly answer our research

objectives. Our rough drafts was very lengthy and took a few tries to cut out the questions that

were unclear orand offered littleno help in determining answers to our research objectives. We

ended up with a three-page survey that had clear, easy to follow, and insightful questions. The

survey followed a careful order and utilized mostly metric questions.

The questions asked in our survey spanned many different topics focusing on beer

preferences and awareness of Mad Greeks Pizzeria’s selections and specials. The only screening

question we asked prior to giving the survey was the participant’s age to make sure they were 18

9 | P a g e

or older. The survey started with warm up questions about the participants drinking habits. The

first question was how often they drink per week, a natural metrica hybrid natural metric and

categorical question. The second question was how much they spend per week, also a natural

metrichybrid natural metric and categorical question.

The next set of questions were transition questions and were more specific to Mad Greeks

Pizzeria, asking how long it has been since their last purchase from Mad Greeks, a natural hybrid

natural metric and categorical question. The next question was regarding what type of beers they

have recently purchased there, which was a categorical multiple-choicedual-choice

questioncategorical question, with choices including: Domestic, Imports, and Crafts. The last

question in this section was about the quantity they normally buy in when purchasing from there,

another categorical multiple-choice question.

The next set of questions was to determine the participant’s preferences when drinking

and what they look for when purchasing beer, these were some of the more complicated

questions. These questions asked how likely they would be to purchase domestic, imported and

craft beers in the next month, a synthetic metric question where the answer choices were placed

on a five point scale (very unlikely, unlikely, neutral, likely, unlikely). The survey also asked to

the participant to determine how important certain attributes are when purchasing beers such as

taste, quantity, price, fullness, and alcohol content, also all on synthetic metric scales where the

answer choices were placed on a five point scale (very unimportant, unimportant, neutral,

important, very important).

The last set of questions was about promotions, which were more complicated. One

question about whether the participant was aware of any promotions, a dual choice categorical

question. Following this were two questions conditional upon a positive indication of promotion

10 | P a g e

awareness. The first was aided open-ended question asking which ones they were aware of; the

second asked how many times they have purchased beer under any of the promotions in the past

month which was another hybrid natural metric and categorical question. The section ended

with a question on how likely they would be to purchase beer with a variety of promotions from

very unlikely to likelyvery unlikely, unlikely, neutral, likely, and very unlikely, a synthetic

metric question.

Finally the survey ended with three general questions about the participant’s three

favorite beers in order, which was an open-ended question;, their age, which was a natural metric

question; and their gender, a dual choice categorical question. (See Appendix A for survey.)

Data Collection Method

The questionnaires were distributed mainly on campus, given out at popular spots

including the Hagerty Library, Lancaster Walk, and the Starbucks in Pearlstein. All six of our

group members were responsible for giving out at least 15 surveys in different locations on

campus in order to make it as random as possible. The Starbucks seemed to be the easiest place

to get participants to take the survey, which we attributed to the fact that people mainly go there

in between class to grab coffee and don’t have much else to do. We didn’t have anyone refuse to

take the survey but in general people were more approachable outside of the library. Our goal

was to get at least 50 surveys, which we accomplished.

11 | P a g e

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Response Rate

As a team, the Mad Greeks questionnaire was distributed 65 times around campus,

mainly through convenience sampling around the Mad Greeks pizzeria and Drexel University’s

campus. We estimated a response rate to be about 4 out of 5. We assumed that there would be

some respondents who would directly ignore or refuse to take our survey due to the lengthiness

and repetitive nature of the survey. To our surprise, our survey did not experience any resistance

and each respondent that we asked to survey did so without question. We attribute this high

response rate due to the content of the survey and the demographic that we targeted. Because our

respondents are actively interestedbeing involved in the content of our survey (beer), it was easy

for our target audience to relate to and fill out our survey with ease. Our questions were

structured so that the most common beer choicechoices were available, so respondents did not

have to put much thought or calculation to their answers. This was definitely an advantage that

we held compared to the other groups.

Profile of the Samples

Our sample mainly consisted of our demographic, college students, both male and

female, ages 18-21+26. As a team, we targeted not only passersby of Mad Greeks but also

students on campus our friends that fit our target audiencethe target market. The students that we

surveyed were mostly males at about 75%, versus females which made up the last 25% of our

sample. Although we had hoped to survey a balanced 50%/50% of male and female, after

analysis we came to the conclusion that because males typically drink and buy more beer than

females, this would be a more accurate sample.

12 | P a g e

Our sample was very diverse. From Greek life members, unaffiliated, friends and

randomly selected members, we effectively reached all aspects of Drexel’s student body.

Although in the United States, only people who are 21 can purchase alcohol legally, we

recognized that a lot of underage students can still get away with purchasing alcohol,alcohol;

legality was not our main concern. The only age limitation that we enforced was a minimum of

18 years of age, due to the fact that we would need to obtain permission from the guardian of the

minor. Our results were surprising diverse; from strictly no beer consumption during the

week/weekend to heavy drinkers who were exposed to beer 4+ times a week. We believe this

helped the integrity of our survey results, as every college student does not have the same beer

drinking patterns.

After thorough research and analysis, we believe that our team has accurately recorded

the consumer behavior of our target market. With our wide range of participants and the ease in

which our surveys were completed, there was little room for error both in the data collection

process and results.

Data Summary

The data that we collected and analyzed allowed us to draw several conclusions. We were

aiming to reach a minimum of 50 total survey participants for our market research. We ended up

finding 64 total participants, 25% were female and 75% were male. The median age was 21.7

years old. We had a respondent rate of 98.5%, and the only survey we had to throw out was from

one person who said that they did not drink beer, which was the basis of our survey. We believe

that our respondent rate was so high because of our survey topic of beer, which people seem very

easy to open up and answer questions about.

13 | P a g e

First we asked our participants to see what types of beers that they would purchase. When

asked the question; how likely you are to purchase a domestic beer in the next month, 10.9% said

very unlikely, 7.8% said unlikely, 14.1% said neutral, 14.1% said likely, and 53.1% said very

likely with an average of 3.9 therefore the target market is likely to purchase domestic beer in the

next month. When asked the question; how likely you are to purchase an import beer in the next

month, 7.8% said very unlikely, 12.5% said unlikely, 26.6% said neutral, 25.0% said likely, and

28.1% said very likely with an average of 3.5 therefore the target market is in between neutral

and likely to purchase import beer in the next month. When asked the question; how likely you

are to purchase an craft beer in the next month, 17.2% said very unlikely, 9.4% said unlikely,

26.6% said neutral, 8.8% said likely, and 28.1% said very likely with an average of 3.3 therefore

the target market is more neutral than likely to purchase craft beer in the next month. According

to our findings, our participants were more likely to purchase domestic beer (53.1%) rather than

import (28.1%) or craft beer (28.1%).

Then we compared qualities of beer such as taste, price, and alcohol content. When asked

the question; how important is taste when purchasing a beer, 4.7% said very unimportant, 3.1%

said unimportant, 18.8% said neutral, 21.9% said important, and 51.6% said very important with

an average of 4.1 therefore taste is important to the target market. When asked the question; how

important is price when purchasing a beer, 1.6% said very unimportant, 6.3% said unimportant,

20.3% said neutral, 25.0% said important, and 46.9% said very important with an average of 4.1

therefore price is important to the target market. When asked the question; how important is

alcohol content when purchasing a beer, 3.1% said very unimportant, 12.5% said unimportant,

28.1% said neutral, 26.6% said important, and 29.7% said very important with an average of 3.7

therefore alcohol content is more important than neutral to the target market. According to our

14 | P a g e

findings, our participants found taste (51.6%) to be the most important followed by price

(46.9%) and finally alcohol content (29.7%).

Then we compared quantity of beer vs. the quality of beer. When asked the question; how

important is quantity when purchasing a beer, 3.1% said very unimportant, 10.9% said

unimportant, 29.7% said neutral, 31.3% said important, and 25.0% said very important with an

average of 3.6 therefore quantity is more important than neutral to the target market. When asked

the question; how important is quality when purchasing a beer, 4.7% said very unimportant,

9.4% said unimportant, 15.6% said neutral, 28.1% said important, and 42.2% said very important

with an average of 3.9 therefore quality is important to the target market. According to our

findings, participants found quality (42.2%) to be more important than quantity (25.0%).

When asked the question; how important light beer is when purchasing a beer, 9.4% said

very unimportant, 14.1% said unimportant, 26.6% said neutral, 28.1% said important, and 21.9%

said very important with an average of 3.4 therefore the target market is more neutral to light

beers. When asked the question; how important is full beer when purchasing a beer, 10.9% said

very unimportant, 14.1% said unimportant, 31.3% said neutral, 34.4% said important, and 9.4%

said very important with an average of 3.2 therefore the target market is more netural to full

beers. According to our findings, our participants are more likely purchase light beer than full

beer.

When asked the question; are you aware of any promotions currently offered at Mad

Greeks, 93.8% said no and 6.3% said yes. Three respondents (75%) knew of the Meek Millz

promotion and one respondent (25%) knew of the $6 for 6 pounders promotion. Of the four

respondents who knew of promotions two (50%) had not purchase under this promotion in the

15 | P a g e

past month, one (25%) had purchase 3-4 times under this promotion in the past month and one

(25%)had purchase 5 times or more under this promotion in the past month.

The survey then went on to ask respondents about the likelihood of them purchasing

under ofur different promotions in the next month. We asked respondents to please indicate how

likely they are to purchase a Yuengling Light 12pok for $12.00, 18.8% said very unlikely, 9.4%

said unlikely, 25% said neutral, 25% said likely and 21.9% said very likely with an average of

3.2 therefore the respondents are more neutral than likely to use this promotion. We then asked

respondents to please indicate how likely they are to purchase a 6 pack of Budewiser or Miller

plus wings or a cheesesteak for $11.00, 17.2% said very unlikely, 9.4% said unlikely, 18.8% said

neutral, 26.6% said likely, and 28.1% said very likely with an average of 3.4 therefore

respondents are more neutral than likely to use this promotion.

Then we asked respondents to indicate how likely they are to purchase a Budweiser 16oz

can 6 pack for $6.50, 21.9% said very unlikely, 12.5% said unlikely, 26.6% said neutral, 20.3%

said likely, and 18.8% said very likely with an average of 3.0 therefore respondents were neutral

to this promotion. We then asked respondents to please indicate how likely they are to purchase a

Miller High Life 16oz can 6 pack for $5.99, 14.1% said very unlikely, 17.2% said unlikely,

31.3% said neutral, 17.2% said likely, and 20.3% said very likely with an average of 3.1

therefore respondents are neutral to this promotion. Respondents seemed neutral to the

promotions overall with a slight preference to the promotion including food.

We then asked participants to rank their top three favorite beers. The respondents top

favorite beers were Blue Moon (13.1%), Yuengling (9.8%), Heineken (8.2%), Sam Adams

(6.6%) and Victory (6.6%). For participants’ second favorite beer the most frequently mentioned

were Blue Moon (12.1%), Yuengling (12.1%), Dogfish Head (6.9%), and Heineken (6.9%). For

16 | P a g e

participants’ third favorite beer the most frequently mentioned were Yuengling (12.1%), Corona

(6.9%), and Victory (6.9%).

Findings

After analysis and calculation, it was evident that there were strong correlations

between a number of different variables. Our questions specifically asked about beer preferences,

price impact, quality, quantity purchased and promotions offered. The highest correlation that

was recorded was the importance of taste and quality. Taste correlated with quality at .715 with a

significance of 0.00. 25 out of 64 (39%) of our respondents said that taste as well as quality was

very important in their beer decision. 12 out of 64 said that taste and quality were important

while only 1 person categorized them as very unimportant.

Our second highest correlation was price versus quality, with a correlation of .473 and a

significance of 0.00. 14 out of our 64 respondents reported that price and quantity was very

important, while 10 out of 64 categorized them as important. It is safe to assume from these

results, that price and quality were the biggest deciding factors to consider when purchasing beer.

This directly translates to value seeking behavior. Value is defined as quality/price. Our target

market doesn’t feel the need to pay a premium price for large quantities of beer (24+pack)

because of Mad Greeks convenient location. As a result, our sample typically uses Mad Greeks

as a quick fix for temporary beer consumption, typically 6 packs, and going to a beer distributer

for anything more. Mad Greeks has successfully established their presence on campus as a

convenient place to purchase quick beer while satisfying a wide range of tastes from domestics,

imports, and to even craft beer.

Furthermore, we asked recipients, on a scale from 1-5, 1 being least important and 5

being most important, on various beer preferences. The highest values that we recorded were

17 | P a g e

4.1/5, when we asked how important taste and price was when purchasing beer. Our lowest value

that we recorded 3.2/5 was the importance of full versus light versus craft beer. Although it may

seem like a low number, in perspective, a response of 3 is categorized as “neutral”; neither

important nor not important. We can assume from these results that taste, quality, price, domestic

beer preferences and alcohol content are the deciding factors when purchasing beer.

On average, about 39.1% of our sample said that they drink beer 4 times or more per

week. I found thisThis statistic is to be particularly interesting because it seems to suggest that

college students are very frequent beer drinkers. At first glance, 39% seemed very inflated. But

after second thought, because our sample was 75% male, it makes a lot more sense. I We believe

if our sample were evenly split 50/50 male to female, then our statistic would be drasticallymight

be less. 42.2% of our sample reported that they spend on average $20-$40 per week on beer. WeI

thought this was a very safe number, considering bar tabs can range anywhere depending on the

venue/what you order. Generally, I we think college students spend more than $20-$40 per week

if they are drinking 4+ times a week, but this question could have been interpreted as strictly beer

purchases, not including wine or spirits.

The last section of our survey highlighted the promotions that Mad Greeks offers for beer

and food discounts. On average, our sample reported about 3.0-3.4 when asked what they felt

about the promotions currently offered at Mad Greeks. As stated before, 3 was the neutral

midpoint on the 1-5 scale. Although our respondents didn’t feel strongly about the promotions,

they didn’t have necessary have negative feelings toward the promotions either. This is largely

due to the lack of knowledge of the promotions itself. 93% of our sample said that they did not

know about the promotions Mad Greeks offered. This is aThis should be a red flag for Mad

Greeks as it was the most lop sided statistic that we recorded. Across the board, it was obvious

18 | P a g e

what the most popular beers were Blue Moon, Yuengling, Victory and Heineken.n were the top

3 beers in all categories. All of these beersthree of them were listed as highly as eithertheir first,

second and third favorite beer. consistently floating around the top three spots.

Interestingly, the intent of purchasing craft beer only correlates with the older sample.

This makes sense because the older students (21+) are typically more motivated to try new craft

beers while the younger sample will usually stick to cheap, domestic, high quantity beer

purchases. Alcohol content also correlated with quantity at .491. This is evident when purchasing

multiple 40oz high gravity (alcohol content) beers that are very popular at Mad Greeks. Overall,

our results were very comprehensive and definitive. There weren’t any results that seemed too

unrealistic to be accounted for. Our sample was an ideal size for the results that we needed and

we feel that our sample was accurately represented. (See Appendix B, C, D, & E for tables and

graphs on all our findings.)

Conclusions

For our first objective we wanted to determine what beers consumers are most likely to

purchase. In order to answer this objective we asked participants to write in their top three

favorite beers. For participants’ top favorite beer the most frequently mentioned were Blue Moon

(13.1%), Yuengling (9.8%), Heineken (8.2%), Sam Adams (6.6%) and Victory (6.6%). For

participants’ second favorite beer the most frequently mentioned were Blue Moon (12.1%),

Yuengling (12.1%), Dogfish Head (6.9%), and Heineken (6.9%). For participants’ third favorite

beer the most frequently mentioned were Yuengling (12.1%), Corona (6.9%), and Victory

(6.9%). After adding up the frequencies for all beers (from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) it was determined that

19 | P a g e

the top overall most popular beers were Yuengling (11.3%), Blue Moon (9.6%), Victory (5.6%),

Heineken (5.1%), and Dogfish Head (4.5%).

For the second objective we wanted to determine if price impacted consumer’s

purchasing decisions. To explore this objective we used a number of questions to help us find an

accurate answer. After looking at the descriptive statistics for the question that asked participants

to indicate how important price was when they purchased beer, we discovered that 71.9%

thought that price was either important (25%) or very important (46.9%). Only 7.8% thought

price was unimportant (1.6%) or very unimportant (6.3%). As the target market consists of

college students, who are naturally price sensitive buyers, these statistics aren’t unsurprising.

When running the correlations between price and other variables in our survey there were

three other qualities that showed a significant relationship with price. Price was correlated with

quantity at .473 with a very high significance (.000). This means that the more price sensitive

buyers are they are going to look for more quantity in their purchases. This is another common

sense conclusion, as most buyers want the most they can get for their money, especially

consumers that are extremely price sensitive. Another quality that correlated with price, although

less so than quantity, was a preference for light beer at .292 with a goodhigh significance (.019).

This seems to suggest that more price sensitive buyers will look for light versions of beer.

Finally, price was highly correlated with participants who intend to purchase domestic beer in

the next month at .343 with very high significance (.006). It seems that price sensitive buyers are

likely to purchase domestic beer over import or craft beer. All of this data suggests that the

average price sensitive buyer is a domestic beer drinker who looks for quantity and light beer

over other qualities.

20 | P a g e

However it is important to note that participants didn’t find price to be the most important

quality they look for when buying beer. 73.4% of participants indicated that taste was important

(21.9%) or very important (51.6%) when purchasing beer. Also 70.3% of participants indicated

that quality was important (28.1%) or very important (42.2%) when purchasing beer. These two

variables produced the highest correlation in our study at .715 with a very high significance

(.000). So while price is importanvitalt it’s also importantimportant to note that it isn’t the only

variable that consumers place importance on.

For the third and final research objective we investigated was whether or not promotional

incentives cause people to purchase in greater quantity or frequency. This objective relied on a

series of current and long-standing promotions offered by Mad Greeks, for which respondents

were asked to rate their likelihood to purchase in the next month on a scale from one to five; one

being very unlikely and five being very likely. We looked at the correlations found between

these ratings and questions such as the quantities purchased at Mad Greeks and time since last

purchase, along with general categories like average weekly beer expense and consumption.

Only one promotion in our survey correlated to the quantities purchased in the

respondents’ last visit to Mad Greeks, which involved a choice between two food items paired

with a choice between two six-packs for a special price. This led to the conclusion that customers

buying in larger quantities might welcome having food to accompany it, but since we did not

survey our sample for their food purchase habits when purchasing beer as well, we cannot

provide further reinforcement to strengthen this conclusion.

Due to the positive correlations between frequency of beer consumption in a week and

the promotions for a domestic six-pack or twelve-pack, we conclude that quantity promotions

may be more effective with more frequent drinkers. While this conclusion does reinforce a

21 | P a g e

common assumption, it is based on correlations on the lower end of significance (nearly .04) and

with relatively low correlation coefficients (.26). More research would be prudent to further

investigate this assumption, with the possibility of challenging its generally applied validity.

As the strongest correlations related to this objective were found between three domestic six-

pack promotions (including the one paired with food) and the average weekly beer expense per

week, we conclude that customers spending more on beer are also more susceptible to price

incentives when purchasing. Though this doesn’t speak directly to quantity or frequency of

purchase as stated in the objective, we do believe it is a relevant conclusion. Value of purchase

and the derivative customer lifetime value are naturally associated benefits of promotional

incentives, to the point that their lack of inclusion highlights a slight oversight in the design of

this research objective.

Finally, based on the significant positive correlation between the likelihood of purchasing

domestic six-pack promotions and the length of time since last beer purchase at Mad Greeks, we

conclude that people who are not in the top segment (less than 1 week since purchase) are also

potentially more responsive to promotions. This does not determine a causal relationship

between incentives and purchase frequency, but does suggests the possibility that people who do

not currently purchase beer at Mad Greeks on a regular basis may be encouraged to do so

through enticing promotions. The correlation between these two questions does weaken as the

respondents have gone longer since purchasing beer there (more than 3 months), though this is

also related to lower weekly consumption.

Our research has shown significant relationships between promotional incentives and the

factors of purchase price and quantity. Though none of these conclusions serve to show causal

22 | P a g e

relationships between these factors as stated in the research objective, they are highly relevant in

justifying further investigation into the subject.

Recommendations

We suggest that Mad Greeks keep stock of and perhaps consider providing promotions

for consumers based on the most popular beers we found in our survey which included

Yuengling, Blue Moon, Victory, Heineken, and DogFish Head. Currently, Mad Greeks is only

providing promotions on Yuengling, but for the light variety. Out of all the above beer brands we

suggest that Mad Greeks try a promotion for Blue Moon because our participants have shown

that they are value orientated (want a high quality product for a good price). By providing a

promotion for Blue Moon we believe that Mad Greeks will see an increase in purchases from

both existing and new value orientated customers.

After concluding that price is correlated with quantity, light beer and the intent to

purchase domestic beer we believe that Mad Greeks should continue with their current

promotions for Yuengling Light, Budweiser and Miller High Life, but perhaps considerst trying

out promotions that include the light versions of Budweiser and Miller. Mad Greeks might also

wish to try promotions with different quantity sizes since consumers seem to be value orientated.

Testing more 40oz or twelve pack promotions might be beneficial to see if an increase in sales

and revenue occurs.

Since we concluded that people who spend more on beer per week are also more

susceptible to promotions, we suggest that Mad Greeks continue their everyday promotions.

23 | P a g e

Due to the very low awareness of their promotions among the people we surveyed, we

recommend that Mad Greeks increase the marketing of their promotions. Currently they

advertise these incentives on a board directly out front and occasionally special promotions are

listed in the window. Increased awareness could also attract customers who have not recently

purchased beer there, based on our conclusion that these people are more responsive to

promotions.

We also suggest they continue to offer their everyday promotions in addition to other

specials. We concluded that these promotions could attract the consumers who spend more on

beer per week. This is a highly valuable set of customers to any establishment that sells beer;

continuing to suit their needs is necessary for retaining and expanding their patronage. This

recommendation would preferably be carried out in conjunction with improvement of promotion

marketing. While some of those high-spend consumers may already be purchasing at Mad

Greeks, the enhanced promotion awareness could allow Mad Greeks to capture more of this

spending than they currently do.

Finally, we recommend that Mad Greeks do more research to help further investigate

some of the findings we discovered. They should consider surveying consumers on potential new

promotions to see if they have any viability in the market place. They might also want to

consider doing a market research survey on their advertising to find the best avenues to introduce

consumers to new promotions.

24 | P a g e

END MATTER

Appendix A

Do you like beer? Mad Greeks wants to know!

You can help Mad Greeks improve their service to customers like you by taking the time to answer all of the questions on this short survey. This survey is completely confidential. Only the researchers will have access to your responses, and those responses will not be associated with you personally in any way.

Surveyors: Jenn Cacace, Julie Goldman, Sungwan Jo, Charlie K, Alan Miller, Bryan Pham, Maddie ZelicoffOn average, how many times do you drink beer per week?

0

1

2

3

4 or more

On average, how much do you spend on beer per week?

less than $10

$10 - $20

$20 - $40

$40 - $60

more than $60

How long has it been since you last purchased beer from Mad Greeks?

less than 1 week

1 - 4 weeks

1 - 3 months

more than 3 months

In the past month, which of the following types of beers have you purchased at Mad Greeks? Please check all that apply

Domestic (i.e. Budweiser, Miller, Coors)

Import (i.e Heineken, Dos Equis, Stella Artois)

25 | P a g e

Craft (i.e Victory, Dogfish Head, Rogue)

The last time you purchased beer at Mad Greeks, what quantities did you purchase in? Please check all that apply

single beers

40oz beers

6 packs

12 packs

24 packs or greater

Please indicate how likely you are to purchase the following types of beers in the next month.

very unlikely

neutral very likely

Domestic

Import

Craft

Please indicate how important the following attributes are to you when purchasing beer.

very unimportant

neutralvery important

Taste

Price

alcohol content

Quantity

Quality

light beers

full beers

Are you aware of any beer promotions currently offered at Mad Greeks?

Yes

No

26 | P a g e

If so, which one(s)?

If yes, how many times have you purchased beer under one of the promotions in the past month?

0

1-2

3-4

5 or more

Please indicate how likely you are to purchase beer with one of these promotions in the next month.

very unlikely

neutral very likely

Yuengling Light 12pk bottles for $12.99

6pk of Budweiser or Miller High Life, PLUS Buffalo Wings or a Cheesesteak for $11.00

Budweiser 16oz can 6pk for $6.50

Miller High Life 16oz can 6pk for $5.99

Please list your top 3 favorite beer brands in order.

1.________________ 2._______________ 3.__________________

Please indicate your age in years. __________

Please indicate your gender.

Male Female

27 | P a g e

Appendix B

Frequency Table

Spendweek

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 15 23.4 23.4 23.4

2 17 26.6 26.6 50.0

3 27 42.2 42.2 92.2

4 4 6.3 6.3 98.4

5 1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

Drinkweek

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 4 6.3 6.3 6.3

1 4 6.3 6.3 12.7

2 14 21.9 22.2 34.9

3 16 25.0 25.4 60.3

4 25 39.1 39.7 100.0

Total 63 98.4 100.0

Missing System 1 1.6

Total 64 100.0

Lastpurchase

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 20 31.3 31.3 31.3

2 17 26.6 26.6 57.8

3 5 7.8 7.8 65.6

4 22 34.4 34.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

28 | P a g e

DomesticMG

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 18 28.1 36.0 36.0

1 32 50.0 64.0 100.0

Total 50 78.1 100.0

Missing System 14 21.9

Total 64 100.0

ImportMG

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 34 53.1 68.0 68.0

1 16 25.0 32.0 100.0

Total 50 78.1 100.0

Missing System 14 21.9

Total 64 100.0

CraftMG

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 26 40.6 52.0 52.0

1 24 37.5 48.0 100.0

Total 50 78.1 100.0

Missing System 14 21.9

Total 64 100.0

SingleMG

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 45 70.3 84.9 84.9

1 8 12.5 15.1 100.0

Total 53 82.8 100.0

Missing System 11 17.2

Total 64 100.0

29 | P a g e

40ozMG

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 40 62.5 75.5 75.5

1 13 20.3 24.5 100.0

Total 53 82.8 100.0

Missing System 11 17.2

Total 64 100.0

6pkMG

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 27 42.2 50.9 50.9

1 26 40.6 49.1 100.0

Total 53 82.8 100.0

Missing System 11 17.2

Total 64 100.0

12pkMG

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 38 59.4 71.7 71.7

1 15 23.4 28.3 100.0

Total 53 82.8 100.0

Missing System 11 17.2

Total 64 100.0

24pkMG

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 49 76.6 92.5 92.5

1 4 6.3 7.5 100.0

Total 53 82.8 100.0

Missing System 11 17.2

Total 64 100.0

30 | P a g e

NxtMonDom

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 7 10.9 10.9 10.9

2 5 7.8 7.8 18.8

3 9 14.1 14.1 32.8

4 9 14.1 14.1 46.9

5 34 53.1 53.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

NxtMonImp

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 5 7.8 7.8 7.8

2 8 12.5 12.5 20.3

3 17 26.6 26.6 46.9

4 16 25.0 25.0 71.9

5 18 28.1 28.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

NextMonCrft

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 11 17.2 17.2 17.2

2 6 9.4 9.4 26.6

3 17 26.6 26.6 53.1

4 12 18.8 18.8 71.9

5 18 28.1 28.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

Taste

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 3 4.7 4.7 4.7

2 2 3.1 3.1 7.8

3 12 18.8 18.8 26.6

4 14 21.9 21.9 48.4

5 33 51.6 51.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

31 | P a g e

Price

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 1 1.6 1.6 1.6

2 4 6.3 6.3 7.8

3 13 20.3 20.3 28.1

4 16 25.0 25.0 53.1

5 30 46.9 46.9 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

Alcoholcont

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 2 3.1 3.1 3.1

2 8 12.5 12.5 15.6

3 18 28.1 28.1 43.8

4 17 26.6 26.6 70.3

5 19 29.7 29.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

Quantity

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 2 3.1 3.1 3.1

2 7 10.9 10.9 14.1

3 19 29.7 29.7 43.8

4 20 31.3 31.3 75.0

5 16 25.0 25.0 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

Quality

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 3 4.7 4.7 4.7

2 6 9.4 9.4 14.1

3 10 15.6 15.6 29.7

4 18 28.1 28.1 57.8

5 27 42.2 42.2 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

32 | P a g e

LightBeer

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 6 9.4 9.4 9.4

2 9 14.1 14.1 23.4

3 17 26.6 26.6 50.0

4 18 28.1 28.1 78.1

5 14 21.9 21.9 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

FullBeer

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 7 10.9 10.9 10.9

2 9 14.1 14.1 25.0

3 20 31.3 31.3 56.3

4 22 34.4 34.4 90.6

5 6 9.4 9.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

Promotions

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 60 93.8 93.8 93.8

1 4 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

Which

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

60 93.8 93.8 93.8

$6 for 6 pounders 1 1.6 1.6 95.3

Meek Mill!! 1 1.6 1.6 96.9

Meek Millz tix 1 1.6 1.6 98.4

Miller Lite promotion for Meek Mills tickets 1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

33 | P a g e

HowManyPro

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0 2 3.1 50.0 50.0

1 1 1.6 25.0 75.0

3 1 1.6 25.0 100.0

Total 4 6.3 100.0

Missing System 60 93.8

Total 64 100.0

Yuengling

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 12 18.8 18.8 18.8

2 6 9.4 9.4 28.1

3 16 25.0 25.0 53.1

4 16 25.0 25.0 78.1

5 14 21.9 21.9 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

BuffaloWings

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 11 17.2 17.2 17.2

2 6 9.4 9.4 26.6

3 12 18.8 18.8 45.3

4 17 26.6 26.6 71.9

5 18 28.1 28.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

Budweiser

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 14 21.9 21.9 21.9

2 8 12.5 12.5 34.4

3 17 26.6 26.6 60.9

4 13 20.3 20.3 81.3

5 12 18.8 18.8 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

34 | P a g e

MillerHighLife

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 9 14.1 14.1 14.1

2 11 17.2 17.2 31.3

3 20 31.3 31.3 62.5

4 11 17.2 17.2 79.7

5 13 20.3 20.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

35 | P a g e

Top1

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

3 4.7 4.7 4.7

Becks 1 1.6 1.6 6.3

Blue Moon 8 12.5 12.5 18.8

Bud Light 3 4.7 4.7 23.4

Bud Light Lime 2 3.1 3.1 26.6

Budweiser 2 3.1 3.1 29.7

Carlsberg 1 1.6 1.6 31.3

Coors 1 1.6 1.6 32.8

Coors Light 2 3.1 3.1 35.9

Corona 1 1.6 1.6 37.5

Dogfish Head 3 4.7 4.7 42.2

German Beer 1 1.6 1.6 43.8

Guiness 1 1.6 1.6 45.3

Heineken 5 7.8 7.8 53.1

Hoegarden 1 1.6 1.6 54.7

Hurriance 1 1.6 1.6 56.3

IPA 1 1.6 1.6 57.8

Keystone Light 1 1.6 1.6 59.4

Lambic 1 1.6 1.6 60.9

Long Trail 1 1.6 1.6 62.5

Magic Hat #9 1 1.6 1.6 64.1

Miller 1 1.6 1.6 65.6

Natural 1 1.6 1.6 67.2

Sam Adams 4 6.3 6.3 73.4

Shock Top 1 1.6 1.6 75.0

Sierra Nevada 1 1.6 1.6 76.6

St Pauli Girl 1 1.6 1.6 78.1

Stella 1 1.6 1.6 79.7

Two Hearted Ale 1 1.6 1.6 81.3

Victory 4 6.3 6.3 87.5

Weinhenstefner 1 1.6 1.6 89.1

Yards 1 1.6 1.6 90.6

Yuengling 6 9.4 9.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

36 | P a g e

Top2

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

6 9.4 9.4 9.4

Beeks 1 1.6 1.6 10.9

Bittburger 1 1.6 1.6 12.5

Blue Moon 7 10.9 10.9 23.4

Bud Light Lime 3 4.7 4.7 28.1

Budweiser 2 3.1 3.1 31.3

Coors 1 1.6 1.6 32.8

Coors Light 3 4.7 4.7 37.5

Corona 1 1.6 1.6 39.1

Czech Beer 1 1.6 1.6 40.6

Dogfish 4 6.3 6.3 46.9

Fosters 1 1.6 1.6 48.4

Guiness 1 1.6 1.6 50.0

Heineken 4 6.3 6.3 56.3

Lions Head 1 1.6 1.6 57.8

Magic Hat #9 2 3.1 3.1 60.9

Michelobultra 1 1.6 1.6 62.5

Miller 1 1.6 1.6 64.1

Monk Beer 1 1.6 1.6 65.6

Natural Light 1 1.6 1.6 67.2

Old English 1 1.6 1.6 68.8

Plahham 1 1.6 1.6 70.3

Rolling Rock 2 3.1 3.1 73.4

Rouge 1 1.6 1.6 75.0

Sam Adams 2 3.1 3.1 78.1

Sam Adams Winter Cherry 1 1.6 1.6 79.7

Shock Top 2 3.1 3.1 82.8

Sierra Nevada Torpedo 1 1.6 1.6 84.4

Stella 1 1.6 1.6 85.9

Victory 2 3.1 3.1 89.1

Yuengling 7 10.9 10.9 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

37 | P a g e

Top3

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

6 9.4 9.4 9.4

Amstel 1 1.6 1.6 10.9

Bass 1 1.6 1.6 12.5

Belgium Beer 1 1.6 1.6 14.1

Blue Moon 2 3.1 3.1 17.2

Brooklyn 1 1.6 1.6 18.8

Bud Light 3 4.7 4.7 23.4

Budweiser 1 1.6 1.6 25.0

Coors 3 4.7 4.7 29.7

Corona 4 6.3 6.3 35.9

DogFish 1 1.6 1.6 37.5

Golden Monkey 1 1.6 1.6 39.1

Hurricane 1 1.6 1.6 40.6

Leinenkugel Sunset Wheat 1 1.6 1.6 42.2

Lions Head 2 3.1 3.1 45.3

Long Trail 1 1.6 1.6 46.9

Magic Hat #9 1 1.6 1.6 48.4

Miller 3 4.7 4.7 53.1

Miller Light 2 3.1 3.1 56.3

Natural Light 2 3.1 3.1 59.4

Pong Beer 1 1.6 1.6 60.9

Sam Adams 2 3.1 3.1 64.1

Saronic 1 1.6 1.6 65.6

Shock Top 3 4.7 4.7 70.3

Stella 3 4.7 4.7 75.0

Stones 1 1.6 1.6 76.6

Troeggs 2 3.1 3.1 79.7

Victory 4 6.3 6.3 85.9

Yards 2 3.1 3.1 89.1

Yuengling 7 10.9 10.9 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

38 | P a g e

Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

19 2 3.1 3.1 3.1

20 7 10.9 10.9 14.1

21 26 40.6 40.6 54.7

22 17 26.6 26.6 81.3

23 5 7.8 7.8 89.1

24 4 6.3 6.3 95.3

26 3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 48 75.0 75.0 75.0

2 16 25.0 25.0 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

39 | P a g e

Appendix C

Crosstabs

Drinkweek * Taste Crosstabulation

Count

Taste Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 0 0 1 0 3 4

1 0 0 0 0 4 4

2 1 1 3 3 6 14

3 0 0 4 4 8 16

4 2 1 3 7 12 25

Total 3 2 11 14 33 63

Drinkweek * Price Crosstabulation

Count

Price Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 0 0 1 1 2 4

1 0 0 2 2 0 4

2 0 2 4 4 4 14

3 0 1 3 4 8 16

4 1 1 3 5 15 25

Total 1 4 13 16 29 63

Drinkweek * Alcoholcont Crosstabulation

Count

Alcoholcont Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 0 1 2 0 1 4

1 0 1 1 2 0 4

2 1 3 6 2 2 14

3 0 2 3 6 5 16

4 1 1 6 7 10 25

Total 2 8 18 17 18 63

40 | P a g e

Drinkweek * Quantity Crosstabulation

Count

Quantity Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 0 2 2 0 0 4

1 0 1 2 1 0 4

2 0 2 7 5 0 14

3 0 0 3 7 6 16

4 2 2 5 7 9 25

Total 2 7 19 20 15 63

Drinkweek * Quality Crosstabulation

Count

Quality Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 0 1 0 1 2 4

1 0 0 0 1 3 4

2 1 1 3 4 5 14

3 0 1 2 5 8 16

4 2 3 4 7 9 25

Total 3 6 9 18 27 63

Drinkweek * LightBeer Crosstabulation

Count

LightBeer Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 2 0 1 1 0 4

1 0 0 4 0 0 4

2 1 4 4 1 4 14

3 0 2 5 5 4 16

4 3 3 3 10 6 25

Total 6 9 17 17 14 63

41 | P a g e

Drinkweek * FullBeer Crosstabulation

Count

FullBeer Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 0 0 1 3 0 4

1 0 0 3 1 0 4

2 1 4 6 2 1 14

3 2 2 5 4 3 16

4 4 3 5 11 2 25

Total 7 9 20 21 6 63

Crosstabs

Spendweek * Taste Crosstabulation

Count

Taste Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 0 0 4 2 9 15

2 3 1 4 2 7 17

3 0 1 4 10 12 27

4 0 0 0 0 4 4

5 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 3 2 12 14 33 64

Spendweek * Price Crosstabulation

Count

Price Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 0 0 5 4 6 15

2 1 3 4 5 4 17

3 0 1 4 5 17 27

4 0 0 0 2 2 4

5 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 1 4 13 16 30 64

42 | P a g e

Spendweek * Alcoholcont Crosstabulation

Count

Alcoholcont Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 0 3 8 2 2 15

2 2 2 3 6 4 17

3 0 3 7 7 10 27

4 0 0 0 1 3 4

5 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 2 8 18 17 19 64

Spendweek * Quantity Crosstabulation

Count

Quantity Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 0 3 6 5 1 15

2 2 1 5 6 3 17

3 0 3 8 6 10 27

4 0 0 0 2 2 4

5 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 2 7 19 20 16 64

Spendweek * Quality Crosstabulation

Count

Quality Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 0 2 1 5 7 15

2 2 1 5 3 6 17

3 1 3 4 10 9 27

4 0 0 0 0 4 4

5 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 3 6 10 18 27 64

43 | P a g e

Spendweek * LightBeer Crosstabulation

Count

LightBeer Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 3 0 6 3 3 15

2 0 4 5 4 4 17

3 2 5 6 9 5 27

4 1 0 0 1 2 4

5 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 6 9 17 18 14 64

Spendweek * FullBeer Crosstabulation

Count

FullBeer Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 1 2 8 4 0 15

2 2 3 5 6 1 17

3 4 4 7 9 3 27

4 0 0 0 2 2 4

5 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 7 9 20 22 6 64

Crosstabs

Spendweek * NxtMonDom Crosstabulation

Count

NxtMonDom Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 2 3 5 1 4 15

2 3 1 2 2 9 17

3 2 0 1 6 18 27

4 0 1 1 0 2 4

5 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 7 5 9 9 34 64

44 | P a g e

Spendweek * NxtMonImp Crosstabulation

Count

NxtMonImp Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 2 2 3 4 4 15

2 0 2 4 5 6 17

3 3 4 8 6 6 27

4 0 0 2 1 1 4

5 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 5 8 17 16 18 64

Spendweek * NextMonCrft Crosstabulation

Count

NextMonCrft Total

1 2 3 4 5

Spendweek

1 5 4 2 2 2 15

2 2 0 8 2 5 17

3 3 2 6 7 9 27

4 1 0 0 1 2 4

5 0 0 1 0 0 1

Total 11 6 17 12 18 64

Crosstabs

Drinkweek * NxtMonDom Crosstabulation

Count

NxtMonDom Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 2 1 1 0 0 4

1 0 0 2 1 1 4

2 3 2 2 2 5 14

3 1 1 1 0 13 16

4 1 1 3 6 14 25

Total 7 5 9 9 33 63

45 | P a g e

Drinkweek * NxtMonImp Crosstabulation

Count

NxtMonImp Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 1 1 1 1 0 4

1 0 1 1 0 2 4

2 1 2 5 3 3 14

3 1 1 4 4 6 16

4 2 3 5 8 7 25

Total 5 8 16 16 18 63

Drinkweek * NextMonCrft Crosstabulation

Count

NextMonCrft Total

1 2 3 4 5

Drinkweek

0 2 1 1 0 0 4

1 0 1 0 1 2 4

2 1 2 4 1 6 14

3 5 0 6 1 4 16

4 3 2 5 9 6 25

Total 11 6 16 12 18 63

Crosstabs

Price * Spendweek Crosstabulation

Count

Spendweek Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 0 1 0 0 0 1

2 0 3 1 0 0 4

3 5 4 4 0 0 13

4 4 5 5 2 0 16

5 6 4 17 2 1 30

Total 15 17 27 4 1 64

46 | P a g e

Price * Lastpurchase Crosstabulation

Count

Lastpurchase Total

1 2 3 4

Price

1 1 0 0 0 1

2 1 1 0 2 4

3 3 2 0 8 13

4 6 5 1 4 16

5 9 9 4 8 30

Total 20 17 5 22 64

Price * Drinkweek Crosstabulation

Count

Drinkweek Total

0 1 2 3 4

Price

1 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 0 0 2 1 1 4

3 1 2 4 3 3 13

4 1 2 4 4 5 16

5 2 0 4 8 15 29

Total 4 4 14 16 25 63

Price * NxtMonDom Crosstabulation

Count

NxtMonDom Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 0 1 1 2 0 4

3 3 2 3 1 4 13

4 2 2 3 4 5 16

5 2 0 2 2 24 30

Total 7 5 9 9 34 64

47 | P a g e

Price * NxtMonImp Crosstabulation

Count

NxtMonImp Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 0 1 0 3 0 4

3 2 1 3 0 7 13

4 1 2 4 6 3 16

5 2 4 10 7 7 30

Total 5 8 17 16 18 64

Price * NextMonCrft Crosstabulation

Count

NextMonCrft Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 1 0 0 0 0 1

2 0 0 1 2 1 4

3 3 3 4 1 2 13

4 1 1 2 3 9 16

5 6 2 10 6 6 30

Total 11 6 17 12 18 64

Price * Taste Crosstabulation

Count

Taste Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 0 1 0 1 2 4

3 2 0 4 1 6 13

4 0 0 0 6 10 16

5 1 1 8 6 14 30

Total 3 2 12 14 33 64

48 | P a g e

Price * Alcoholcont Crosstabulation

Count

Alcoholcont Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 0 1 2 0 1 4

3 1 1 5 4 2 13

4 0 5 2 6 3 16

5 1 1 9 7 12 30

Total 2 8 18 17 19 64

Price * Quantity Crosstabulation

Count

Quantity Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 1 0 0 0 0 1

2 0 1 3 0 0 4

3 1 2 5 3 2 13

4 0 1 5 10 0 16

5 0 3 6 7 14 30

Total 2 7 19 20 16 64

Price * Quality Crosstabulation

Count

Quality Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 0 1 0 1 2 4

3 2 0 1 4 6 13

4 0 0 0 7 9 16

5 1 5 9 6 9 30

Total 3 6 10 18 27 64

49 | P a g e

Price * LightBeer Crosstabulation

Count

LightBeer Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 0 2 1 1 0 4

3 3 1 6 2 1 13

4 2 3 6 3 2 16

5 1 3 4 12 10 30

Total 6 9 17 18 14 64

Price * FullBeer Crosstabulation

Count

FullBeer Total

1 2 3 4 5

Price

1 1 0 0 0 0 1

2 0 1 1 2 0 4

3 1 3 6 2 1 13

4 0 0 7 7 2 16

5 5 5 6 11 3 30

Total 7 9 20 22 6 64

50 | P a g e

Appendix DCorrelations

  NxtMonImp NextMonCrft NxtMonDom Taste Price Alcoholcont Quality Quantity

NxtMonImp Pearson Correlation

1 .182 .110 -.117 -.113 .194 .088 .157

Sig. (2-tailed)   .150 .387 .359 .374 .125 .491 .216

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

NextMonCrft Pearson Correlation

.182 1 .133 .254* .044 .035 .229 .033

Sig. (2-tailed) .150   .294 .043 .727 .782 .069 .795

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

NxtMonDom Pearson Correlation

.110 .133 1 -.013 .343** .180 -.118 .281*

Sig. (2-tailed) .387 .294   .922 .006 .155 .353 .024

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Taste Pearson Correlation

-.117 .254* -.013 1 .017 .134 .715** -.068

Sig. (2-tailed) .359 .043 .922   .893 .293 .000 .596

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Price Pearson Correlation

-.113 .044 .343** .017 1 .149 -.190 .473**

Sig. (2-tailed) .374 .727 .006 .893   .239 .132 .000

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Alcoholcont Pearson Correlation

.194 .035 .180 .134 .149 1 .092 .491**

Sig. (2-tailed) .125 .782 .155 .293 .239   .471 .000

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Quality Pearson Correlation

.088 .229 -.118 .715** -.190 .092 1 .045

Sig. (2-tailed) .491 .069 .353 .000 .132 .471   .726

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Quantity Pearson Correlation

.157 .033 .281* -.068 .473** .491** .045 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .216 .795 .024 .596 .000 .000 .726  

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

LightBeer Pearson Correlation

.284* -.124 .311* -.093 .292* .218 -.059 .285*

Sig. (2-tailed) .023 .329 .012 .466 .019 .084 .644 .022

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

FullBeer Pearson Correlation

.103 .153 -.138 .133 .081 .268* .293* .273*

Sig. (2-tailed) .419 .228 .275 .296 .526 .032 .019 .029

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Yuengling Pearson Correlation

-.004 .085 .091 .033 -.091 -.004 -.049 -.116

Sig. (2-tailed) .975 .505 .474 .796 .473 .974 .699 .361

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

BuffaloWings Pearson Correlation

.104 .204 .128 .048 .350** .267* .043 .299*

Sig. (2-tailed) .413 .106 .312 .705 .005 .033 .737 .016

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Budweiser Pearson Correlation

.149 -.034 .344** .069 .358** .243 -.143 .088

Sig. (2-tailed) .240 .789 .005 .587 .004 .053 .261 .491

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

51 | P a g e

MillerHighLife Pearson Correlation

.278* .004 .477** -.043 .271* .296* -.066 .190

Sig. (2-tailed) .026 .973 .000 .735 .030 .018 .602 .134

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Age Pearson Correlation

.150 .348** .023 .084 -.042 .030 .181 -.147

Sig. (2-tailed) .238 .005 .855 .510 .739 .814 .151 .245

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

  LightBeer FullBeer Yuengling BuffaloWings Budweiser MillerHighLife AgeNxtMonImp Pearson

Correlation.284* .103 -.004 .104 .149 .278* .150

Sig. (2-tailed)

.023 .419 .975 .413 .240 .026 .238

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

NextMonCrft Pearson Correlation

-.124 .153 .085 .204 -.034 .004 .348**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.329 .228 .505 .106 .789 .973 .005

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

NxtMonDom Pearson Correlation

.311* -.138 .091 .128 .344** .477** .023

Sig. (2-tailed)

.012 .275 .474 .312 .005 .000 .855

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Taste Pearson Correlation

-.093 .133 .033 .048 .069 -.043 .084

Sig. (2-tailed)

.466 .296 .796 .705 .587 .735 .510

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Price Pearson Correlation

.292* .081 -.091 .350** .358** .271* -.042

Sig. (2-tailed)

.019 .526 .473 .005 .004 .030 .739

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Alcoholcont Pearson Correlation

.218 .268* -.004 .267* .243 .296* .030

Sig. (2-tailed)

.084 .032 .974 .033 .053 .018 .814

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Quality Pearson Correlation

-.059 .293* -.049 .043 -.143 -.066 .181

Sig. (2-tailed)

.644 .019 .699 .737 .261 .602 .151

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Quantity Pearson Correlation

.285* .273* -.116 .299* .088 .190 -.147

Sig. (2-tailed)

.022 .029 .361 .016 .491 .134 .245

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

LightBeer Pearson Correlation

1 -.150 .023 .145 .405** .397** -.086

Sig. (2-tailed)

  .238 .856 .254 .001 .001 .500

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

FullBeer Pearson Correlation

-.150 1 -.034 .222 -.022 .134 .044

Sig. (2-tailed)

.238   .789 .078 .866 .290 .729

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Yuengling Pearson Correlation

.023 -.034 1 .250* .111 .089 .028

Sig. (2-tailed)

.856 .789   .046 .382 .487 .826

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

BuffaloWings Pearson .145 .222 .250* 1 .351** .387** .176

52 | P a g e

CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

.254 .078 .046   .004 .002 .164

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Budweiser Pearson Correlation

.405** -.022 .111 .351** 1 .821** .041

Sig. (2-tailed)

.001 .866 .382 .004   .000 .747

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

MillerHighLife Pearson Correlation

.397** .134 .089 .387** .821** 1 .204

Sig. (2-tailed)

.001 .290 .487 .002 .000   .106

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Age Pearson Correlation

-.086 .044 .028 .176 .041 .204 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.500 .729 .826 .164 .747 .106  

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

53 | P a g e

Appendix E

Pie Chart

54 | P a g e

55 | P a g e

56 | P a g e

57 | P a g e

58 | P a g e

59 | P a g e

60 | P a g e

Bar Chart

61 | P a g e

62 | P a g e

63 | P a g e

64 | P a g e

65 | P a g e

66 | P a g e

67 | P a g e