Table of Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................2

2. Findings ..........................................................................................................................2

2.1. Market definition ......................................................................................................2

2.2. Secondary data collection and analysis .....................................................................2

2.3. Methodology ............................................................................................................3

2.3.1. Quantitative research .........................................................................................3

2.3.2. Qualitative research ...........................................................................................4

2.4. Presentation of the report ..........................................................................................5

3. Conclusion & Recommendations ....................................................................................5

Reference ...............................................................................................................................6

Appendix 1: The definition of the UK traditional toys and games market ...............................6

Appendix 2: The analysis of the questionnaire ........................................................................6

1

Executive summary

This report was commissioned by order of Fred Foster, Managing Director, to evaluate the

research report by Hatfield Market Research Consultants UK to Playful Times Toys.

All sections of the subject report were evaluated in the period of December 17th and

December 30th concerning:

The appropriateness of secondary data collection and analysis

The suitability of the sampling

The appropriateness of primary data collection and analysis

The consistency of the questionnaire

The conclusions and recommendations in the given report

The presentation of the given report

Since the brief and the proposal are not provided, an in-depth evaluation of consistency

among the brief, the proposal and the given report could not be achieved. Also, the research

objective was not clearly stated in the given report. Hence, the objective given in the

methodology section [„if the company‟s new range of toys will be popular in the market‟] was

taken in consideration by evaluating the report overall.

This report explains the findings in detail, based on the above mentioned terms of reference.

Also, a detailed analysis of the questionnaire can be found in appendices. Fundamentally, the

report draws attention to the issues below:

Both secondary and primary data are not up-to-date

The content of secondary data is not consistent in itself. Some information does not

have back-up, consequently, does not have credibility.

Overall, both secondary and primary data are unconvinced to relate to the research

objective. Samples are not representative.

The relevancy and usefulness of information is not always the case.

There are unethical practices regarding both secondary and primary researches.

In conclusion, it can be suggested to not accept the report by Hatfield Market Research

Consultants UK.

2

1. Introduction

The report consists of two main sections – Findings and Conclusion &

Recommendation. First, findings will be produced under four main sub-sections including

„market definition’, ‘secondary data collection and analyses, ‘methodology’ and ‘presentation

of the report’ respectively. There is no separate section for the analysis of „ethical issues‟. The

relevant ethical points will be argued within the findings. Finally, the report will be concluded

with recommendations.

2. Findings

2.1. Market definition

In line with the Keynote (2010) definition of „The UK Traditional Toys and Games

Market (see Appendix 1), it appears that the market definition given in the report is not clear.

The target market for Playful Times Toys was defined as all items that can be used for Play

and Leisure such as dolls, games, and puzzles in the UK. First of all, “all items” has complex

meanings. It is too big to define. So the definition has no boundaries. In addition, we do not

know what the target age group is. Also, the content of the toys in question is not clear. Are

they including electronic contents? Does the market cover computer games and console

systems? What are the sub-categories in the market?

From the introduction section of the report, it is understood that Playful Times Toys is

a company manufacturing a range of simple toys for „pre-school age children‟, under 5 years

old. So, the company‟s target audience already focused on the infant/pre-school category

within the toy market. However, the definition stated in the report shows that the consultant

agency defined its own target market for Playful Times Toys.

2.2. Secondary data collection and analysis

Malhotra (2007) indicates that decision makers require current data, so the value of

data is decreased as they become dated. In the report the secondary data is based on the

figures in 2004. Considering the recent economic crunch, it can be argued that the data may

not reflect accurate figures for household disposable income and the market value based on

six year-old retail prices.

The content of the secondary data should be examined based on the definition of key

variables, the categories used, the units of measurement and so on (Malhotra, 2007).

However, as mentioned, the definition of market is not clear. The effects of the poor market

definition can be seen especially in secondary data collection. Different measures were used

in the figures such as “Traditional Toys and Games”, “Games and Toys market”, “Toys and

Games Market (including computer games)”.

Table 1 shows the value of “traditional” toys and games market, while Table 3

consists of information that includes “computer games”, which are normally excluded from

the traditional toys and games market definition (see Appendix 1). Based on Table 1 the

report suggests that the games and toys market is slowing down. However, this might be

explained by falling retail prices. Therefore, it is not secure to say that the market is slowing

down based on only this figure.

The report claims that the annual rise in household disposable income (Table 2), along

with “falling family size” means that per capita spending on children has risen. There is no

3

evidence in the report to show that the family size in the UK is decreasing. So it can be said

that the credibility of the information is a question mark, based on the given data.

The relevance and usefulness of secondary data to the problem at hand is an ethical

issue (Malhotra, 2007). It can therefore be inferred that the use of secondary data that is not

applicable to the research objectives is unethical. Table 3 shows the frequency of purchasers

based on age groups. As mentioned, first of all, this figure includes computer games, which

should have excluded from the traditional toy market. Secondly, this figure is irrelevant

regarding the objective of this research (see section 2.3).

2.3. Methodology

From the methodology section of the report, it is understood that the objective of the

research is to decide „whether the company‟s new range of toys will be popular in the

market‟. With this in mind, the consultant agency claims that the research was designed to be

conclusive.

The objective of conclusive research is to describe specific phenomena, to test specific

hypothesis and to examine specific relationship (Malhotra, 2007: 72). Hereby, it can be

argued that the given objective of the research does not fit to conclusive research design.

On the other hand, exploratory research is the research to provide insights and to

understand of the nature of the phenomena. It can use both quantitative and qualitative

explorations. Exploratory research may be designed at investigating whether there is any

interest in a new product idea (Wilson, 2006). Therefore, it could be suggested that the given

objective leads to the exploratory research design, rather than the conclusive one.

2.3.1. Quantitative research

2.3.1.1. Sampling

The report states that the agency worked in conjunction with the university and

obtained 15 LEAs in England to conduct research at their primary schools. First of all,

primary schools are for children aged from four to eleven year-old. However, Playful Times

Toys is a company manufacturing toys for pre-school-age children (see section 2.1). As a

result, the research place, and consequently the population of interest are not appropriate for

the purpose of this research.

On the other hand, we do not know which schools were chosen to carry out interviews.

Are they from only the South Mimms area? Or are they from fifteen different regions in

England? Are they private schools or state schools? All these questions affect the

representativeness of the sample and eventually the results of the research because the

variables such as household disposable income, demographic indicators, education, number of

children per family, and many others will change based on these questions.

Interviews were carried out between 1st and 15

th December 2006. First of all, as is the

case for secondary data, again the primary data is not up-to-date. Secondly, the period of time

may be arguable since it is just before Christmas when toy sales are the highest at that

moment of the year. It may influence the questions 4, 5, and 7 in the given questionnaire.

The reports claims that respondents were selected using a „simple random sample‟.

Simple random sampling, which is one of the probability sampling methods, refers to the

sample in which every member of the population of interest (which is stated in the report as

„mothers with children at school‟) has an equal chance of being selected. “Simple random

4

sampling is only possible when we can get a complete, up-to-date listing of the population of

interest” (Wilson, 2006: 201). However, it appears to be the case that it is not the simple

random sample what the agency carried out, but „convenience sampling‟. Malhotra (2007)

states that convenience sampling is a method in which the selection is left primarily to the

interviewer. Interviewing people on the street is one example of this type of sampling.

Respondents are selected since they happen to be in the given place (that is the gates of the

schools in our case) at the right time. He goes on to say that convenience sample is not

representative and not recommended for conclusive research (Malhotra, 2007).

From the above discussion, considering the agency‟s claim of using conclusive

research design, coupled with the fact of using a simple random sample, it can therefore be

inferred that the consultant agency has no idea what they are doing.

2.3.1.2. Questionnaire

The agency states that 1250 interviews were completed. However, Table 7 indicates

that only 270 people reached to the end because there are several „exit questions‟ in the

questionnaire. From the questionnaire, it is observed that there is a concentration on

„electronic teddy bear‟. It is difficult to understand why there is such a focus since the brief

and the proposal were not provided. However, even if the company‟s new product range is

„teddy bear‟, then, primary schools are not the right places so as to measure the potential

interest for „teddy bear‟.

In conclusion, Brace (2008) states that it is an ethical issue to ensure that the

questionnaire is fit for the purpose of the research, which is in our case „to understand if the

company‟s new range of toys will be popular in the market‟. With this in mind, it can be seen

that the questionnaire is not appropriate to measure this phenomenon.

Further reservations about the questionnaire were presented as an appendix. Please

refer to Appendix 2 for in depth information.

2.3.2. Qualitative research

Qualitative research is an unstructured exploratory design based on small samples so

as to provide insight and understanding of the subject (Malhotra, 2007). It is particularly

suited to measure likely interest in the concept (Wilson, 2006). Therefore, it is appropriate to

carry out qualitative research techniques such as focus groups, personal interviews and

observation for the purpose of the given research objective. However, there are some

reservations related to sampling, execution and ethics.

Firstly, it can be argued that the usage of company employees whose children are

registered at the company‟s crèche is not appropriate in terms of sample. Their opinions will

most likely be biased since they work in Playful Times Toys. They are already aware of the

products and have (or would have) positive criticism about the company‟s products. As a

matter of fact, the results that the consultant agency pointed out based on focus groups and

personal interviews are not reliable. In other words, it is secure to say that the sample is not

representative. On the other hand, it appears that the respondents were talked about the

dangers of fast food. This is irrelevant information, and consequently unethical since it is not

fit for the objective of the research at hand (Malhotra, 2007). In addition, an informant‟s name

was declared in the report which is unethical based on the „respondent‟s rights to anonymity‟

(MRS, 2010a).

5

In terms of the observation technique carried out in two other crèches, there are also

some reservations. Firstly, parents were used in the observation process, which is not

appropriate since they are not trained researchers. Moreover, parents might have effects on

their children‟s interest during the observation process. Secondly, it appears that the nurseries

were not told about the research process so as to get unbiased responses. However, this is an

ethical issue. The consent of a parent or responsible adult - who are nurseries in our case -

must be given sufficient information about the nature of the research process to enable them

to provide informed consent (MRS, 2010b). If it is needed to camouflage the purpose, then

the informants must be told beforehand that this is the case, and entire details supplied at the

end of the research (Hall et al, 2010).

2.4. Presentation of the report

First of all, the report does not have cover page, executive summary and table of

contents. Sections and sub-sections are not numbered. In addition, there are two background

sections in the report. Research objective does not appear. It normally should have been stated

before the terms of reference. However, the objective is understood afterwards from the

methodology section. This implies that the consultant agency did not have a proper research

design and planning. Overall, it can be concluded that the report fails to relate to the research

objective. Moreover, there are some pitfalls in both secondary and primary research.

Especially in secondary research, numbers based on figures were mainly repeated without

proper interpretation. In addition, some explanations and recommendations were offered

based on a single statistic. Consequently, it can be concluded that data analysis is inaccurate

(Hall, 2010).

3. Conclusion & Recommendations

In light of the above mentioned findings, it can be commented that the report by

Hatfield Market Research Consultants UK is poor to answer the research objective about the

Playful Times Toy‟ s new range of products. Also, it should be borne in mind that all above

mentioned ethical issues are in charge of Playful Times Toys as the client, as well as the

researcher company. In conclusion, it can be recommended to not accept the report.

The following research approach could be suggested in regard to measure children‟s

interest to the company‟s new range of products:

An exploratory research design in crèches (rather than the company‟s own crèche),

covering different regions (not only South Mimms), with trained researchers (not

parents) in co-operation with nurseries, by using video record equipments to further

analyse of children‟s behaviours and reactions toward the company‟s new range of

toys, and regarding all ethical issues for the research process.

6

Reference

Brace, I. (2008) Questionnaire Design: How to plan, structure and write survey material for

effective market research. 2nd

ed. London: Kogan Page

Hall, E., Large, C., O‟Connor, E. and Dunne, S. (2010) Workbook for Research for Marketing

Practitioners. (September) University of Hertfordshire

Malhotra, N. K. and Birks, D. F. (2007) Marketing Research An Applied Approach. 3rd

ed.

Essex: FT Prentice Hall

MRS (2010a) „Respondents‟ Rights to Anonymity. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/downloads/Code%20of%20Conduct%202010.pdf

[Accessed 20th

December 2011]

MRS (2010b) „Preparing for fieldwork- Children. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/downloads/Code%20of%20Conduct%202010.pdf

[Accessed 20th

December 2011]

Wilson, A. (2006) Marketing Research An Integrated Approach. 2nd

ed. Essex: FT Prentice

Hall

Appendix 1: The definition of the UK traditional toys and games market

According to Keynote (2010), the UK traditional toys and games market includes the

products are primarily targeted at the under-14s, although there is some overlap with the adult

market where toy products are designed for or bought for adults. The products may have some

electronic content, but they exclude video, PC and console systems and games. The market

consists of ten categories: action, activity, dolls, electronic, games/puzzles, infant/pre-school,

outdoor and sports, plush, vehicles and other products.

Appendix 2: The analysis of the questionnaire

Do you live in this area? : This is an irrelevant question. It has no ability to measure the given

objective. Moreover, as mentioned before, we already do not know which area or areas we are

talking about. As a matter of fact, this information was not used in the report as a conclusion

or recommendation.

What age are you? : This is an irrelevant question. Based on this question, we see that the

agency prepared Table 4 in the finding section, claiming that 25-34 year-olds age group is

7

most-likely to buy toys, while 65 plus age group is least likely to buy toys. First of all, we

already know this information based on the secondary research. So, it is unethical. Secondly,

this question measures the age of people who are waiting at the outside of the primary school.

They might be siblings, nannies, grandparents. But the population of interest was stated as

„mothers at children at school‟. Also, considering the fact that primary school is for children

aged at least four year-olds, the category 15-19 under the question does not make sense at all.

In addition, if the respondents answer is „no‟ for the next question, we cannot use the results

of question 2.

Do you buy children‟s toys? If no go to end: If we do not interview for people who say „no‟ to

this question, what is the purpose of asking them first two questions? If the population of

interest is the people who buy children‟s toy, then this question could be asked as a first

question in the process of selecting respondents.

The categories under question 5 - weekly- monthly- yearly, etc. - are not appropriate. What

exactly is meant by weekly? Does it refer to „one time a week‟ or „five times a week‟?

Brace (2008) states that the questionnaire sequence should be easy to follow by both

interviewer and respondents. Question 4, 8 and 10 include long lists that are difficult to follow

by respondents. In fact, question 10 refers to this list in question 8, which is difficult for

respondents to remember all items again. On the other hand, question 12, which includes the

expression „if yes to any‟, is difficult to follow by interviewer, looking at all past yes-no

questions to check whether all of them are „yes‟.

Bruce (2008) suggests that a question should not cause interviewer to turn the page to see all

possible responses. The questionnaire looks too long, 3 pages. This may affect the response

rate if the respondents think that the questionnaire is long. In addition, a crowded layout might

lead the interviewer mistakes (Bruce, 2008). Therefore, it can be suggested that smaller font

or more intense layout could have been used to fit questions on to one paper.

In question 12, „other‟ answer code should be written what „other‟ is.

For the list questions, an instruction should be given in order to clarify whether single or

multiple responses are expected (Bruce, 2008). Based on this, question 10 should have been

given instruction as is the case in question 4, 8, 12 and 13. Besides, Bruce (2008) suggests

that single set of responses can be used next to each other for the questions which have the

same list of codes. Hereby, question 4, 8 and 10 could have prepared based on this structure in

order to facilitate to follow by both interviewer and respondents.

It is unreasonable to assume that everybody will remember an issue that may have happened

some time ago. So, „Don‟t know‟ or „Can‟t remember‟ categories should be included in

questions where necessary (Bruce, 2008). Hereby, it can be suggested that especially question

4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 could have included „can‟t remember‟ or „don‟t know answer codes

accordingly.