Retail Surge Company: Research Findings And Market Challenges

Market Challenges

Managing a business to prosperity has been a major challenge in the recent decade. Many businesses have sprung up there by increasing the level of competition in the market. This competition has resulted into some businesses collapsing and others to initiate measures that could rescue them. Some of the initiatives adopted by businesses within industries to remain afloat have been for example conducting market research and sales and marketing. Others have resorted to widen their market platform by embracing technology. This they have done by creating online platform where customers can visit, view and make purchases online.

In all these market challenges, Retail Surge Company has not been spared. The Company is an online business which sells clothes and shoes belonging to boys and girls and men and women. It also deals in customised products and sportswear. Despite having a variety of products, Retail Surge Company has experienced a nosedive in the level of profits it is making. The cost of goods has also gone high thereby contributing to the deteriorating levels of profits. This has been a cause of worry to the management of the company thereby prompting them to undertake a research to re-evaluate their position in the market. A customer-centric data was collected to better inform the company of its performance.

• The product category is made the most profit

The research used bar charts to present the analysed data about the products stocked by Retail Surge Company and their profit levels. This was an ideal way of presenting the data data due to the visualization aspect.

• Product category that cost the most

The research used bar charts to present the analysed data about the products stocked by Retail Surge Company and their cost. This was an ideal way of presenting the data due to the visualization aspect.

• Is there a difference in payment methods?

Since Retail Surge was also focussed to determine whether there were differences in payment methods. For this reason independent sample t-test was chosen to determine independence between payment through PayPal and credit card.

• Are there any differences in the user groups on all of the customer attitudes? (6 outcomes)

Retail Surge was also focussed to determine whether there were differences in user groups about the customer attitudes. For this reason an analysis of variance test was used to determine equality of means between the user groups. The user groups were light users, medium users and heavy users.

• Are there any differences in gender on all of the customer attitudes?

Since Retail Surge was also focussed to determine whether there were differences in customer attitudes between the males and the females. For this reason independent sample t-test was chosen to determine independence between the two genders.

This research used bar charts as shown in figure 1 to present the analysed data about the products stocked by Retail Surge Company and their mean total profits. From the chart, it can be concluded that the product with the highest mean total profit was the customised category with mean total profit of 25 dollars. The product category that was the second in terms of mean total profit was men’s shoes with about 16 dollars. The product category with the least mean total profit was boys’ shoes (4 dollars).

This research used bar charts as shown in figure 2 to present the analysed data about the products stocked by Retail Surge Company and their cost. From the chart, it can be concluded that the product class with the highest cost was the customised category with total cost of about 10 dollars. The product category that was the second in terms of cost was girls’ shoes with 8 dollars. The product category with the least cost mean was men’s shoes (1 dollar).

Research Findings

Above shows the box-plot of total purchase with PayPal and credit card. It can be said that distribution of both methods of payments were normally distributed since the median value cuts the box-plots into two equal parts.

Descriptives
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean	Minimum	Maximum
Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Knowledge of the company	Light Users	104	2.85	1.711	.168	2.51	3.18	1	6
Medium Users	204	4.90	1.664	.116	4.67	5.13	2	7
Heavy Users	284	6.45	.601	.036	6.38	6.52	5	7
Total	592	5.28	1.840	.076	5.14	5.43	1	7
Satisfaction with the company	Light Users	104	2.54	1.157	.113	2.31	2.76	1	6
Medium Users	204	5.39	1.033	.072	5.25	5.53	2	7
Heavy Users	284	6.07	.776	.046	5.98	6.16	2	7
Total	592	5.22	1.585	.065	5.09	5.34	1	7
Preference for Nike	Light Users	104	2.46	1.507	.148	2.17	2.75	1	6
Medium Users	204	2.82	1.572	.110	2.61	3.04	1	5
Heavy Users	284	4.45	1.654	.098	4.26	4.64	1	7
Total	592	3.54	1.826	.075	3.39	3.69	1	7
Purchase Intention for Nike	Light Users	100	4.16	1.835	.184	3.80	4.52	1	7
Medium Users	204	4.04	1.893	.133	3.78	4.30	2	7
Heavy Users	284	5.01	1.195	.071	4.87	5.15	3	7
Total	588	4.53	1.648	.068	4.40	4.66	1	7
Would recommend company to a friend	Light Users	104	3.46	1.131	.111	3.24	3.68	2	6
Medium Users	204	4.92	.494	.035	4.85	4.98	4	6
Heavy Users	284	6.35	.477	.028	6.29	6.40	6	7
Total	592	5.35	1.260	.052	5.25	5.45	2	7
Loyalty for Nike	Light Users	104	3.92	1.499	.147	3.63	4.21	2	6
Medium Users	204	4.14	1.563	.109	3.92	4.35	2	6
Heavy Users	284	3.92	1.575	.093	3.73	4.10	2	7
Total	592	3.99	1.559	.064	3.87	4.12	2	7

Test of Homogeneity of Variances
	Levene Statistic	df1	df2	Sig.
Knowledge of the company	Based on Mean	137.679	2	589	.000
Based on Median	43.167	2	589	.000
Based on Median and with adjusted df	43.167	2	366.541	.000
Based on trimmed mean	130.226	2	589	.000
Satisfacition with the company	Based on Mean	34.012	2	589	.000
Based on Median	19.318	2	589	.000
Based on Median and with adjusted df	19.318	2	543.743	.000
Based on trimmed mean	28.470	2	589	.000
Preference for Nike	Based on Mean	3.007	2	589	.050
Based on Median	2.032	2	589	.132
Based on Median and with adjusted df	2.032	2	534.316	.132
Based on trimmed mean	3.259	2	589	.039
Purchase Intention for Nike	Based on Mean	51.499	2	585	.000
Based on Median	48.655	2	585	.000
Based on Median and with adjusted df	48.655	2	555.807	.000
Based on trimmed mean	49.574	2	585	.000
Would recommend company to a friend	Based on Mean	155.697	2	589	.000
Based on Median	75.229	2	589	.000
Based on Median and with adjusted df	75.229	2	489.408	.000
Based on trimmed mean	152.051	2	589	.000
Loyalty for Nike	Based on Mean	.438	2	589	.645
Based on Median	1.134	2	589	.322
Based on Median and with adjusted df	1.134	2	466.890	.323
Based on trimmed mean	.333	2	589	.717

Table 1

Equality of variance between the variables above was tested using Lavene’s test (null hypothesis) (Derrick, Toher, & White, 2017). Knowledge about the company had a p-value of 0.05 which is less than the level of significance. This means that the null hypothesis is violated thus we reject it and accept the alternative hypothesis. The conclusion is inequality of variance across the group. The same decision and conclusion is made about purchase intention, would recommend the company and satisfaction with the company. However, loyalty for Nike and preference for Nike had p-values greater than level of significance. They had p-values of 0.65 and 0.05 respectively. Both are greater and equal to the level of significance thus the null hypothesis is accepted and conclusion made that there is equality of variance in those groups  (Leigh, 2008) . ANOVA
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Knowledge of the company	Between Groups	1034.437	2	517.218	315.401	.000
Within Groups	965.888	589	1.640
Total	2000.324	591
Satisfaction with the company	Between Groups	959.259	2	479.630	538.032	.000
Within Groups	525.065	589	.891
Total	1484.324	591
Preference for Nike	Between Groups	461.224	2	230.612	89.966	.000
Within Groups	1509.803	589	2.563
Total	1971.027	591
Purchase Intention for Nike	Between Groups	129.379	2	64.690	25.830	.000
Within Groups	1465.070	585	2.504
Total	1594.449	587
Would recommend company to a friend	Between Groups	692.399	2	346.199	829.181	.000
Within Groups	245.919	589	.418
Total	938.318	591
Loyalty for Nike	Between Groups	6.460	2	3.230	1.331	.265
Within Groups	1429.513	589	2.427
Total	1435.973	591

Table 2

1. First attitude: Knowledge of the company

The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all means are equal (at least one mean is different).

1. Second attitude: Satisfaction with the company

 The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all means are equal (at least one mean is different) (Howell, 2007).

1. Third attitude: Preference for Nike

 The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all means are equal (at least one mean is different)

1. Fourth Attitude: Purchase intention for Nike

 The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all means are equal (at least one mean is different) (Hinkelmann & Kempthorne, 2010).

1. Fifth attitude: Would recommend company to a friend?

 The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all means are equal (at least one mean is different)

Sixth Attitude: Loyalty for Nike 

The value of the critical value was 0.27 > 0.05. The null hypothesis is not violated and thus not rejected. It is concluded that all means are equal (at least one mean is different) (Gelman, 2005).

Multiple Comparisons
Bonferroni
Dependent Variable	(I) Webiste User Group	(J) Webiste User Group	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Knowledge of the company	Light Users	Medium Users	-2.056*	.154	.000	-2.43	-1.69
Heavy Users	-3.605*	.147	.000	-3.96	-3.25
Medium Users	Light Users	2.056*	.154	.000	1.69	2.43
Heavy Users	-1.549*	.118	.000	-1.83	-1.27
Heavy Users	Light Users	3.605*	.147	.000	3.25	3.96
Medium Users	1.549*	.118	.000	1.27	1.83
Satisfaction with the company	Light Users	Medium Users	-2.854*	.114	.000	-3.13	-2.58
Heavy Users	-3.532*	.108	.000	-3.79	-3.27
Medium Users	Light Users	2.854*	.114	.000	2.58	3.13
Heavy Users	-.678*	.087	.000	-.89	-.47
Heavy Users	Light Users	3.532*	.108	.000	3.27	3.79
Medium Users	.678*	.087	.000	.47	.89
Preference for Nike	Light Users	Medium Users	-.362	.193	.183	-.83	.10
Heavy Users	-1.989*	.184	.000	-2.43	-1.55
Medium Users	Light Users	.362	.193	.183	-.10	.83
Heavy Users	-1.627*	.147	.000	-1.98	-1.27
Heavy Users	Light Users	1.989*	.184	.000	1.55	2.43
Medium Users	1.627*	.147	.000	1.27	1.98
Purchase Intention for Nike	Light Users	Medium Users	.121	.193	1.000	-.34	.58
Heavy Users	-.854*	.184	.000	-1.30	-.41
Medium Users	Light Users	-.121	.193	1.000	-.58	.34
Heavy Users	-.975*	.145	.000	-1.32	-.63
Heavy Users	Light Users	.854*	.184	.000	.41	1.30
Medium Users	.975*	.145	.000	.63	1.32
Would recommend company to a friend	Light Users	Medium Users	-1.455*	.078	.000	-1.64	-1.27
Heavy Users	-2.887*	.074	.000	-3.06	-2.71
Medium Users	Light Users	1.455*	.078	.000	1.27	1.64
Heavy Users	-1.432*	.059	.000	-1.57	-1.29
Heavy Users	Light Users	2.887*	.074	.000	2.71	3.06
Medium Users	1.432*	.059	.000	1.29	1.57
Loyalty for Nike	Light Users	Medium Users	-.214	.188	.763	-.66	.24
Heavy Users	.008	.179	1.000	-.42	.44
Medium Users	Light Users	.214	.188	.763	-.24	.66
Heavy Users	.222	.143	.364	-.12	.57
Heavy Users	Light Users	-.008	.179	1.000	-.44	.42
Medium Users	-.222	.143	.364	-.57	.12
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 3 

Hypothesis 

The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all means are equal (at least one mean is different)

However for Nike products, the hypothesis and conclusion was as below; 

The value of the critical value was 0.27 > 0.05. The null hypothesis is not violated and thus not rejected. It is concluded that all means are equal.

Group Statistics
	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
Knowledge of the company	Female	388	5.02	1.961	.100
Male	204	5.78	1.463	.102
Satisfaction with the company	Female	388	5.18	1.595	.081
Male	204	5.29	1.567	.110
Preference for Nike	Female	388	3.19	1.876	.095
Male	204	4.22	1.516	.106
Purchase Intention for Nike	Female	388	4.67	1.619	.082
Male	200	4.26	1.675	.118
Loyalty for Nike	Female	388	3.44	1.588	.081
Male	204	5.04	.768	.054
Would recommend company to a friend	Female	388	5.40	1.255	.064
Male	204	5.25	1.267	.089

Table 4

Independent Samples Test
	Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances	t-test for Equality of Means
F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower	Upper
Knowledge of the company	Equal variances assumed	56.606	.000	-4.892	590	.000	-.764	.156	-1.070	-.457
Equal variances not assumed			-5.347	522.857	.000	-.764	.143	-1.044	-.483
Satisfaction with the company	Equal variances assumed	.024	.877	-.867	590	.386	-.119	.137	-.388	.150
Equal variances not assumed			-.872	419.112	.384	-.119	.136	-.387	.149
Preference for Nike	Equal variances assumed	14.901	.000	-6.765	590	.000	-1.030	.152	-1.329	-.731
Equal variances not assumed			-7.223	493.730	.000	-1.030	.143	-1.310	-.750
Purchase Intention for Nike	Equal variances assumed	2.724	.099	2.876	586	.004	.410	.143	.130	.690
Equal variances not assumed			2.845	390.123	.005	.410	.144	.127	.694
Loyalty for Nike	Equal variances assumed	246.135	.000	-13.543	590	.000	-1.596	.118	-1.827	-1.364
Equal variances not assumed			-16.471	586.589	.000	-1.596	.097	-1.786	-1.406
Would recommend company to a friend	Equal variances assumed	.157	.692	1.442	590	.150	.157	.109	-.057	.371
Equal variances not assumed			1.437	409.319	.151	.157	.109	-.058	.372

Table 5

• Test for equality of variance in attitude (knowledge of the company) between male and female

Hypothesis 

The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all variances are equal (at least one variance is different)

• Test for equality of variance in attitude (satisfaction with the company) between male and female

Hypothesis 

The value of the critical value was 0.39 > 0.05. The null hypothesis is not violated and thus not rejected. It is concluded that all variances are equal.

• Test for equality of variance in attitude (preference for Nike) between male and female

Hypothesis

The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all variances are equal.

• Test for equality of variance in attitude (purchase intention for Nike) between male and female

Hypothesis

The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all variances are equal.

• Test for equality of variance in attitude (loyalty for Nike) between male and female

Hypothesis 

The value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that not all variances are equal.

• Test for equality of variance in customer attitude (would recommend company to a friend) between male and female

Hypothesis 

The value of the critical value was 0.15 > 0.05. The null hypothesis is not violated and thus not rejected. It is concluded that all variances are equal.

One sample t-test for the mean satisfaction level (3.5)

Hypothesis

H₀: µ = 3.5

Versus

H₁: µ ≠ 3.5

Test results table is as shown below

One-Sample Statistics
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
Satisfaction with the company	592	5.22	1.585	.065

Table 6

One-Sample Test
	Test Value = 3.5
t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower	Upper
Satisfaction with the company	26.349	591	.000	1.716	1.59	1.84

Table 7

The results of the t-test show that the value of the critical value was 0.00 < 0.05. The null hypothesis is violated and thus rejected. It is concluded that the mean satisfaction level is not 3.5.

From the analysis of the customer-centric data collected, various findings were made. These findings will form the basis of decision making for Retail Surge Company. It was found that the product with the highest mean total profit was the customised category with mean total profit of 25 dollars. The product category that was the second in terms of mean total profit was men’s shoes with about 16 dollars. The product category with the least mean total profit was boys’ shoes (4 dollars). On product cost, the product class with the highest cost was the customised category with total cost of about 10 dollars. The product category that was the second in terms of cost was girls’ shoes with 8 dollars. The product category with the least cost mean was men’s shoes (1 dollar). It was also found that there was no significant difference in the two methods of payments. This means that the two methods were being used equally by the customers to buy goods at Retail Surge Company.

Reference

Derrick, B., Toher, D., & White, P. (2017). How to compare the mean of two samples that include paired observations and independent observations. Quantitative methods for Psychology, 13(2), 120 – 126.

Gelman, A. (2005). Analysis of variance? Why it is more important than ever. The anals of Statistics, 33, 1 – 53.

Hinkelmann, K., & Kempthorne, O. (2010). Design and analysis of experiments (5 ed., Vol. 8).

Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for Psychology (3 ed., Vol. 5).

Leigh, E. S. (2008). Consumer rites. Selling of American Holidays, 6(3), 106 – 191.