sample thesis

28
University of Santo Tomas College of Education In partial fulfillment of the requirements in Math Ed104 An Assessment on the Effect of Brand Name and the Types of Market to the Prices of Various Goods Dairo, Roeder G. Magbitang, John Ildefonso V. Mendoza, Warren I. Sajise, Maria Antonette L. Tse, Zharina T.

Upload: ruth-ray-abratique

Post on 28-Nov-2014

948 views

Category:

Documents


7 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Sample Thesis

University of Santo Tomas

College of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in Math Ed104

An Assessment on the Effect of Brand Name and the Types of

Market to the Prices of Various Goods

Dairo, Roeder G.

Magbitang, John Ildefonso V.

Mendoza, Warren I.

Sajise, Maria Antonette L.

Tse, Zharina T.

I. INTRODUCTION

Page 2: Sample Thesis

Global crisis is a widely felt phenomenon that most Filipinos are experiencing

today. The principle of practicality, wise spending and thriftiness is indeed in full

effect. The wise use of resources serves as the primordial response of the Filipinos

to this crisis. The fluctuating costs of commodities make it harder even to decide

which ones to choose from the wide array on the market’s shelves. Hence, the

question of what to buy and where to buy continues to become a dilemma in the

consumer’s mind. In this study, the prices of various goods sold in both public

market and wet market are being compared.

A. Statement of the Problem

This study deals with the following questions:

Is there a significant difference between the price of each of the goods sold

in public markets and the prices of the same products sold in supermarkets?

Between the public market and supermarket, which can give a practical

realization of the prices of the various goods?

Do the kinds of market and product brands have any effect on the prices of

the given goods in both types of markets?

B. Significance of the Study

To address the financial crisis that rages around the globe, especially in the

Philippines, this study aims to provide adequate information about the difference of

the prices of the products they buy in both public markets and supermarkets.

This study is targeted to help the Filipinos in choosing which market to go to and

which product brands can give them the most realized and practical prices in line

with the continuous increase of these goods.

C. Scope and Limitation

This study includes the following:

Page 3: Sample Thesis

1. 100 randomly selected students of the University of Santo Tomas

2. Three public markets namely Trabaho Public Market located in

Sampaloc, Manila; Central Market located in Quiapo, Manila and

Blumentrit Market located in Blumentrit, Manila.

3. Three supermarkets namely SM San Lazaro Supermarket , Puregold

Supermarket in Pasig and Ever Gotesco supermarket in Sampaloc.

4. The products that both markets are selling

5. The prices of the two preferred brands of good of the respondents

6. Same net weight of the brands

The study will not include the following:

1. Other public markets and supermarkets in Manila other than stated

above.

2. Products that are not present in both markets other than stated above.

D. Assumptions of the Study

The researchers assume that:

1. There is no significant difference between the prices of goods sold in

both public markets and supermarkets.

2. The brand name and the kind of market have an effect on the prices

of various goods.

II. Method

A. Subjects

Page 4: Sample Thesis

This study focuses on the students from the University of Santo Tomas. A

random sample of 100 people was chosen as the group gave out pieces of the

survey around campus.

B. Instruments

This study will be using a survey concerning some consumable or common

products being used in a daily basis. These products have been chosen to make

sure that in both types of market, they are being sold. Each good will have its top

two mostly liked brands, which will then be chosen by the subjects.

C. Research design

This study is composed of a set of randomized, single-blind controlled trials. This

type of study was chosen because it would be best not to let the locus know about

what was being studied. Otherwise, this might have an effect on the results of the

surveys. It aims to show which types of market people prefer to go to and which

brands of goods majority of the students of the University of Santo Tomas chooses.

D. Data collection procedure

This part of the paper will discuss about the processes the research went through,

how it came about and other factors that affected the process itself. The steps will

be called the phases. A short description of what transpired will be included.

Phase I

The researchers brainstormed on a certain topic that would be of great benefit to

the public with regards to the continuous fluctuating prices of commodities thus,

arriving at the topic to check whether the types of market affect the product’s

prices.

Phase II

A survey questionnaire was produced containing questions that will state the

necessary goods to be observed. The questions were about certain goods which

were used almost in the daily life. Food and toiletries were included. Each good

was evaluated by the researchers by choosing for the mostly bought brand in

Page 5: Sample Thesis

the market. Each good had two alternative brands for the correspondents to

choose from. Otherwise, there was a blank provided for other brands preferred

by each individual. Three public markets and supermarkets were chosen within

the walls of Metro Manila.

Phase III

The said set of questionnaires was given out to the students of the University of

Santo Tomas. The study was chosen to be random. Having different students

from the different colleges of the university to answer was the researchers’

choice to see how various students will respond.

Phase IV

After giving out the questionnaires, the researchers went to the two types of

markets, choosing three markets for each type. Prices were gathered in the

markets and the weight or amount of each product was controlled to make sure

a clear result is given out.

Phase V

After gathering all needed data, a two way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test

was used to determine the relationship of the goods’ prices, place they are

bought and if there is an effect on each other.

Phase VI

All gathered data was analyzed and placed in tables and graphs to make the

presentation of data clearer.

Page 6: Sample Thesis

III. Data Analysis

A. Presentation of Data

This section presents the data as collected from the survey questionnaires

answered by 100 randomly selected students of the University of Santo Tomas. The

succeeding presentations deal with the findings of the study.

Distribution of the Respondents according to the Monthly Income of the

Family

Chart 1

Chart 1 shows that majority of the respondents have family monthly income of P30, 001 and above or 64% of the total responses.

Distribution of the Respondents according to the kind of market

where goods are being bought

Chart 2

Page 7: Sample Thesis

Chart 2 shows that majority of the families of Thomasian students buy the follwing goods in

super markets rather than pucligaining a percentage of 93%.

BRAND OF GOODS

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of

Chicken

Chart 3.1

Chart 3.1 shows that Magnolia is the preferred brand of chicken of Thomasian students with

47% of the total responses and followed by ordinary chicken with 38%.

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of

Hotdog

Chart 3.2

Chart 3.2 shows that the two preferred hotdog brands of Thomasian students are Tender

Juicy with percentage of 76% and CDO Bibbo with 19%.

Page 8: Sample Thesis

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of

Noodles

Chart 3.3

Chart 3.3 shows that Lucky Me is the most popular choice among the brands of noodles

gaining a percentage of 82% followed by Payless with 14%.

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of

Laundry Powders

Chart 3.4

Chart 3.4 shows that Tide with 66% and Surf with 22% of the total percentage are the two

leading choices among the brands of laundry powders.

Page 9: Sample Thesis

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of

Chocolate Drink

Chart 3.5

Chart 3.5 shows that Milo and Ovaltine are the two preferred brands of chocolate drink with

a percentage of 80% and 19% respectively.

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Soy

Sauce

Chart 3.6

Chart 3.6 shows that Datu Puti gained the highest percentage of 49% followed by Silver

Swan with 43%.

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of

Toothpaste

Chart 3.7

Page 10: Sample Thesis

Chart 3.7 shows that Colgate is the preferred brand of toothpaste among Thomasian

students with 73% of the total responses and followed by Close up with 19%.

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of

Shampoo

Chart 3.8

Chart 3.8 shows that the two preferred brands of shampoo of Thomasian students are Head

& Shoulders (35%) and Clear (32%).

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Rice

Chart 3.9

Page 11: Sample Thesis

Chart 3.9 shows that Sinandomeng and Dinorado are the preferred brands of rice of

Thomasian students with percentage of 45% and 34% respectively.

Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Body

Soa

Chart 3.10

Chart 3.10 shows that Safeguard is the preferred brand of chicken of Thomasian students

(69%) followed by Palmolive (26%).

Page 12: Sample Thesis

From the result of the survey, the two brands of goods that gained the

highest response from the respondents were used as the actual brands to be

compared and tested. Three public markets in Manila namely Trabajo Market in

Sampaloc, Central Market in Quiapo and Blumentritt Market and three supermarkets

specifically SM San Lazaro Supermarket, Ever Gotesco Supermarket in Sampaloc

and Puregold in Pasig were chosen. The prices of these two brands were taken from

these two types of markets. The net weight of these brands of goods was controlled

all throughout the testing. For public markets, the prices of goods taken in different

stores were computed to yield the mean price. The tables below present the two

brands of goods brands in two markets.

Table 1Prices of Goods in Three Public Markets

Items Net Weight Public MarketsTrabajo Central Blumentritt

Chicken I kgOrdinary P135 P130 P110Magnolia P135 P130 126

Hotdogs IkgTender Juicy P161 P165 P157CDO Bibbo P155.50 P156 P155

Instant Noodles 55gLucky Me P6.75 P6.75 P6.50Payless P6.00 P5.75 P5.75

Laundry powders 500gTide P51.00 P51.50 P51.50Surf P50.75 P50.25 P50.50

Chocolate drink 300gMilo P62.00 P63.50 P62.50

Ovaltine P61.00 P62.00 P61.25Soy sauce 385mL

Silver Swan P13.00 P13.50 P13.50Datu Puti P12.00 P13.00 P12.00

Toothpaste 100mLColgate P48.00 P53.50 P53.00

Close- Up P47.50 P55.00 P55.00Shampoo 100mL

Clear P54.25 P54.50 P54.75Head and Shoulders P52 P53.75 P54.75

Rice 10kgSinandomeng P360 P320 P350

Dinorado P450 P400 P400Body soap 90g

Safeguard P21.75 P22 P22Palmolive P19.50 P20 P19.50

Table 2Prices of Goods in Three Super Markets

Page 13: Sample Thesis

Super Market

Items Net Weight SM Puregold Ever Gotesco

Chicken 1kg

Ordinary P122 P128 P126

Magnolia P125 P136.90 P121

Hotdogs 1kg

Tender Juicy P182 P176.60 P182

CDO Bibbo P171 P171 P171

Instant Noodles 55g

Lucky Me P6.50 P6.50 P6.50

Payless P5.70 P6.00 P5.70

Laundry powders 500g

Tide P51 P51.35 P51.85

Surf P47.10 P46.65 P48

Chocolate drink 300g

Milo P62.70 P62 P62.50

Ovaltine P64.50 P60 P61

Soy sauce 385mL

Silver Swan P13.25 P13.20 P13

Datu Puti P12.10 P12.75 P12.75

Toothpaste 100mL

Colgate P50.70 P50.90 P50.50

Close- Up P53.10 P52.25 P54

Shampoo 100mL

Clear P54.70 P55 P54.75

Head and Shoulders P51.50 P53.50 P53

Rice 10kg

Sinandomeng P385 P370 P410

Dinorado P465 P400 P468.25

Body soap 90g

Safeguard P20.50 P21.30 P21

Palmolive P19.70 P18.90 P19.80

Page 14: Sample Thesis

B. DiscussionTwo-way analysis of variance was used to test whether the brand name or

the type of market or the interaction of both have an effect on the prices of the

various goods. The rejection of the null hypothesis depends on the comparison

between the p-value and the level of significance or between the critical value and

the test statistic (F). If the p-value corresponding to the test statistic is small (such

as less than or equal to alpha), we reject the null hypothesis of no effect from the

row, column and interaction factor. If the p-value is large (such as greater than or

equal to alpha), we fail to reject the null hypothesis of no effect from the row,

column and interaction factor (Triola, 2010). In our testing the level of significance

used was 95% or 0.05.

The general null hypothesis (Ho) and alternative hypothesis (Ha) for all the 10 items

are as follows:

Ho: There is no significant effect on the prices of goods due to the kind of its brand.

Ha: There is a significant effect on the prices of goods due to the kind of its brand.

Ho: There is no significant effect on the prices of goods due to the type of market

where these goods are being bought.

Ha: There is a significant effect on the prices of goods due to the type of market

where these goods are being bought.

Ho: There is no significant effect on the prices of goods due to the type of market

and the kind of brand.

Ha: There is a significant effect on the prices of goods due to the type of market and

the kind of brand.

Testing of Hypothesis for each item

The following tables show the prices of goods in the two types of markets. The rows

signify the brands of the goods while the columns display the kinds of market. Each

entry in the cell was the actual prices of these brands taken in three public markets

and supermarkets. The testing of the data gathered was to be done per goods in

order to identify the effect of the brands and the kind of market to the prices of

Page 15: Sample Thesis

these specific items through the use of two-way ANOVA. Their corresponding

ANOVA table as shown below matched each of the table.

Table 3

Prices of the Brands of Chicken in Two Markets

Type of MarketBrand of Chicken Public Supermarket

Magnolia 135 125130 136.9126 121

Ordinary 135 122130 128110 126

ANOVA table for table 3

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Sample(brand of chicken)

43.70083 1

43.70083

0.640141

0.446765

5.317655

Columns(kinds of market)

4.200833 1

4.200833

0.061535

0.810335

5.317655

Interaction6.90083

3 16.90083

30.10108

50.75867

25.31765

5Within 546.14 8 68.2675

Total600.942

5 11        

To test the effect of the brand of chicken to its market price, p-value and the level

of significance are needed to be compared. The p-value is 0.446765, which is

greater than the alpha (0.05) used. In this case, the null hypothesis, that there is no

significant effect on the price of goods due to the brand of chicken needs to be

accepted. Thus, the brand of chicken has no effect on its price.

The p-value of the type of market where the chicken is being bought is 0.810335

which is greater than 0.05. The decision to be made is to accept the null hypothesis

that the type of market has no effect on the price of chicken.

Page 16: Sample Thesis

The interaction between the brand of chicken and the market where it is being

purchased has no effect on the relative price of the chicken because the p-value

obtained, 0.810335, is less than 0.05.

Table 4

Prices of the Brands of Hotdogs in Two Markets

Types of MarketBrand of hotdog Public Supermarket

Tender Juicy 161 182165 176.6157 182

CDO Bibbo 155.5 171156 171155 171

ANOVA Table for Table 4

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Sample(brand of hotdog) 162.0675 1 162.0675 24.96226

0.001058

5.317655

Columns(kind of market) 903.0675 1 903.0675 139.094

2.45E-06

5.317655

Interaction 10.2675 1 10.2675 1.58144 0.244025.31765

5Within 51.94 8 6.4925

Total 1127.3425 11        

The p-value of the sample, the brand of chicken, is 0.001058 which is less than the

level of significance. The null hypothesis of having an effect on the price of hotdogs

due to its brand has to be rejected. Thus, the brand of hotdog has effect on its

market price.

Comparing to the alpha, the p-value of the column, the type of market, has less

value (2.45E-06 > 0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis needs to be rejected. The type of

market where hotdogs are bought has an effect on its price.

Page 17: Sample Thesis

The p-value of the interaction of the brand of chicken and the type of market is

0.24402, which is greater than the alpha of 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis needs to

be accepted. The brand of chicken and the type of market where it is being bought

has no outcome of its market price.

Table 5

Prices of the Brands of Instant Noodles in Two Markets

Types of MarketBrand of Noodles Public Supermarket

Lucky Me 6.75 6.56.75 6.56.5 6.5

Payless 6 55.75 65.75 5.7

ANOVA Table for Table 5

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Sample(brand of instant noodles)

2.340833333 1

2.340833333

30.69945

0.000547

5.317655

Columns(type of market)

0.140833333 1

0.140833333

1.846995

0.211205

5.317655

Interaction 0.0075 1 0.00750.09836

10.76182

75.31765

5Within 0.61 8 0.07625

Total3.0991666

67 11        

Since the p-value of the sample is 0.000547, which is less than the alpha, the null

hypothesis has to be rejected. Thus, the brand of instant noodles has effect on its

market price.

Page 18: Sample Thesis

The p-value of the column yields a value of 0.211205, which is greater than the

alpha of 0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis of having an effect on the price of instant

noodles due to the type of market must be accepted. The type of market where the

noodles are purchased has no bearing on its price.

The interaction of type of market and the brand of the noodles has a p-value of

0.761827. The p-value is greater than the level of significance used. Thus, the type

of market and the brand of instant noodles have no effect on its price.

Table 6

Prices of the Brands of Laundry Powders in Two Markets

Types of MarketBrand of Laundry Powder Public Supermarket

Tide 51 5151.5 51.3551.5 51.85

Surf 50.75 47.150.25 46.6550.5 48

ANOVA Table for Table 6

Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit

Sample(brand of laundry powder)

18.62520833 1

18.62520833

93.02914

1.11E-05

5.317655

Columns(type of market)

7.600208333 1

7.600208333 37.9615

0.000271

5.317655

Interaction8.25020833

3 18.2502083

3341.2081

20.00020

55.31765

5

Within1.60166666

7 80.2002083

33

Total36.0772916

7 11        

Page 19: Sample Thesis

The brand of the laundry powder yielded a p-value of 1.11E-05, which is greater

than the alpha of 0.05. The null hypothesis needs to be accepted. Thus, the brand of

laundry powder has no effect on its price.

The type of market acquired a p-value of 0.000271. When compared to the alpha

used, it would fall under the region of acceptance. Hence, the null hypothesis must

be accepted. The type of market has no effect on the price of laundry powders.

Table 7

Prices of the Brands of Chocolate Drink in Two Markets

Kinds of MarketBrand of Chocolate Drink Public Supermarket

Milo 62 62.763.5 6262.5 62.5

Ovaltine 61 64.562 60

61.25 61

ANOVA Table for Table 7

Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit

Sample 2.475208333 12.4752083

33 1.507550.25441

15.31765

5

Columns 0.016875 1 0.0168750.01027

80.92174

45.31765

5

Interaction 0.350208333 10.3502083

330.21329

80.65649

45.31765

5Within 13.135 8 1.641875

Total 15.97729167 11        

Page 20: Sample Thesis

Table 8

Prices of the Brands of Soy Sauce in Two Markets

Kinds of MarketBrand of Soy Sauce Public Supermarket

Silver Swan 13 1213.5 1313.5 12

Datu Puti 13.25 12.113.2 12.7513 12.75

ANOVA Table for Table 8

Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit

Sample 0.000208333 10.0002083

330.00144

90.97056

55.31765

5

Columns 1.960208333 11.9602083

3313.6362

30.00610

65.31765

5

Interaction 0.110208333 10.1102083

330.76666

70.40677

15.31765

5Within 1.15 8 0.14375

Total 3.220625 11        

Decision:

Accept Ho

Reject Ho

Reject Ho

Page 21: Sample Thesis

Table 9

Prices of the Brands of Toothpastes in Two Markets

Kinds of MarketBrand of Toothpaste Public Supermarket

Colgate 48 47.553.5 5553 55

Close-up 50.7 53.150.9 52.2550.5 54

ANOVA Table for Table 9

Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit

Sample 0.025208333 10.0252083

33 0.00350.95427

25.31765

5

Columns 8.755208333 18.7552083

331.21575

50.30225

75.31765

5

Interaction 1.505208333 11.5052083

330.20901

4 0.65975.31765

5

Within 57.61166667 87.2014583

33

Total 67.89729167 11        

Decision:

Accept Ho

Reject Ho

Accept Ho

Page 22: Sample Thesis

Table 10

Prices of the Brands of Shampoos in Two Markets

Kinds of MarketBrand of Shampoo Public Supermarket

Clear 54.25 5254.5 53.75

54.75 54.75Head and Shoulder 54.7 51.5

55 53.554.75 53

ANOVA Table for Table 10

Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit

Sample 0.200208333 10.2002083

330.25757

20.62548

65.31765

5

Columns 7.441875 1 7.4418759.57410

90.01479

55.31765

5

Interaction 0.991875 1 0.9918751.27606

50.29136

25.31765

5

Within 6.218333333 80.7772916

67

Total 14.85229167 11        

Decision:

Accept Ho

Reject Ho

Reject Ho

Page 23: Sample Thesis

Table 11

Prices of the Brands of Rice in Two Markets

Kinds of Market

Brand of Rice Public Supermarket

Sinandomeng 360 385

320 370

350 410

Dinorado 450 465

400 400

400 468.25

ANOVA Table for Table 11

Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit

Sample12561.5052

1 112561.505

2115.9143

80.00400

95.31765

5

Columns3969.42187

5 13969.4218

755.02892

80.05520

75.31765

5Interaction 223.171875 1

223.171875 0.28274

0.609355

5.317655

Within6314.54166

7 8789.31770

83

Total23068.6406

3 11        

Decision:

Reject ho

Reject Ho

Accept Ho

Page 24: Sample Thesis

Table 12

Prices of the brands of Body Soap in Two Markets

Kinds of MarketBrand of Body Soap Public Supermarket

Safeguard 21.75 20.522 21.322 21

Palmolive 19.5 19.720 18.9

19.5 19.8

ANOVA Table for Table 12

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Sample 10.36020833 110.360208

3381.1239

81.84E-

055.31765

5

Columns 1.050208333 11.0502083

338.22349

10.02090

45.31765

5Interaction 0.460208333 1

0.460208333

3.603589

0.094212

5.317655

Within 1.021666667 80.1277083

33

Total 12.89229167 11        

Decision:

Reject Ho

Reject Ho

Reject Ho