1 / 19

Hypothesis Testing & Retail Audit

Hypothesis Testing & Retail Audit. In Consumer Behavior 06.01.2014. Laura Brosch, Iris Kaiser, Tanvi Sharma. H1: Type of mall does not affect CDM styles. Factor loadings : N umerical values indicating strength & direction of a factor on a measured valuable (item )

neka
Download Presentation

Hypothesis Testing & Retail Audit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hypothesis Testing & Retail Audit In Consumer Behavior 06.01.2014 Laura Brosch, Iris Kaiser, Tanvi Sharma

  2. H1: Type of mall does not affect CDM styles Factorloadings:Numericalvaluesindicatingstrength & directionof a factor on a measuredvaluable (item)  Indicatehowstronglythefactorinfluencesthemeasured variable (item) Source: M. Rahn: Factor Analysis: A Short Introduction, Part 1. URL: http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/factor-analysis-1-introduction/, [30.11.2013]

  3. CDM stylesarefoundtobeindependentof different shoppingcontexts

  4. Retail Audit: Thalia

  5. Retail Audit: zeilenreich

  6. Retail Audit: Weltbild

  7. Retail Audit: Book Stores

  8. Retail Audit: Runners Point

  9. Retail Audit: Intersport

  10. Retail Audit – Sport Stores

  11. Consumer observation • Purchase I) E-Book Reader • Purchase II) runningshoes

  12. Information search • Evaluation of alternatives Purchase I) E-Book reader Impact ofrankings • Brochure • Flyers • Contactingserviceassistant • E-Book orTablet? • Criteria: • Price • Handling • Recommendationby a friend via phone-call

  13. Customer profile: „Book lover“ • Age: 24-30 • Occupation: Student • Income level: max. 12.000 €/ year • Location: Berlin • Habits andlikes: reading, middle- expenseentertainment, middletechnicalaffinity • Decision style: priceconscious/ valueformoney • Repurchasepossibility: middle(~ in 2 years)

  14. Evaluation of alternatives • Information search • Information search Purchase II) runningshoes • Contactingserviceassistant 3 times • 3 different models • Criteria: • Design • Quality • Perfect fit • - Check via phone

  15. Customer Profile„The sportyfashionconscious“ • Age: 22 - 25 • Occupation: Student • Income level: 12.000 €/ year • Location: Berlin • Habits andlikes: fashionconscious, sporty, strivingforthenewest • Decision style: noveltyandfashionconscious, high qualityconscious • Repurchasepossibility: high (half a year – 1 year)

  16. Hypothesis Testing on IMM Monkeys

  17. Source: http://goo.gl/N3NXgO Hypothesis Testingon IMM Monkeys Weare all collaboratingnegotiators!! YAY!! H1: 70% ofthefemalestudentsofour IMM classhave a collaboratingnegotiationstyle Well 70% ofgirls in thismasterusuallyarecollaborating…

  18. Hypothesis Testingon IMM Monkeys H2:The likelihood of choosing negotiation tactic 1 (making an opening demand that is far greater than what one really hopes to settle for) is irrespective of negotiating styles.

  19. ThankYou

More Related