lllllllHll‘llllH

3%}; IIJHHHIIW

 

l- - '_,-;. 8. ... 3 -_. .r Q q;_: * - .{- I" n-J.‘
" r5 '. "3 g“ 3 f ‘h ‘ 5 1 . .‘x “ ' ' j .‘c
\n ; . . .: . .‘2; ....‘ﬁ. -. .s. - "s ,\ .....'- V . ..

' ' ' ’4 1J- '& ‘QC‘I‘U'K ‘. ‘f: ‘2'. ‘. ‘ ' v- 23%;.QK‘Q
\ ‘»~ ‘4 ‘4‘, '3 , \ t - . j ‘,
b . \ L AV. 1-; U O 'o--.. U \. I -L 3‘ b V 0‘. u ‘ - X o. o ‘0
3“ ' ' ‘ ' 'x ’ ’ .1
Q ' r, I, ‘0. . 'O" I. R .0} 'g A _- ‘
3 .
I - 3" .5 .‘3— o o .3 L“ 3. 3 \‘ 5 . . D: oﬂ‘
'- ' a ’. 'u-o unu- O ‘ I ' o- s 'a ﬁn‘
‘ ' ‘ . 3 O . ' \ b 7 \
- l o . - o.‘\7!¢‘o \ K.‘ a n -5 - - U o '6 ‘ . O-.‘I—§‘ «I o

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A Study of the Paper Departments in
Selected Super Markets

presented by

Jesse P. Schaudies

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MasteLgLALts degree in Food Distribution

[Sagan

Major professor

 

Date May 5, 1956

 

0-169

 

A STUDY OF THE PAPER DEPARTMENTS IN

SELECTED SUPERMARKETS

By

Jesse Pike S__c_haudies

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State
University of Agriculture and Applied Science in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of General Business

Curriculum in Food Distribution

Approved (/1? J A

Jesse P. Schaudies

This study is a pilot study to determine the factors that inﬂuence
sales of paper products in super markets.

It is believed that the growth of paper departments in today's modern
super market has not kept pace with the growth in proportion with other
departments. A great deal of study is necessary to determine the proper
size and location of the paper department within the super market.

Three hypothesis were selected for study: (1) location of paper de-
partment within the store; (2) out-of— stock conditions in paper department;
(3) the number of facings representing the product categories.

Audits were run in nine selected super markets to obtain the required
data. Actual physical counts were made of the units in the paper department
on a "whole population" basis. These audits were conducted over a two
week period during the summer months.

This study is not an attempt to answer all the questions concerning
the hypothesis. The author attempts to shed some light on trends and areas
where additional study is needed.

The actual physical location of the paper department within the store
seems to have some bearing on sales. A system of grids were used to
standardize the stores and to give some credence to the ﬁndings. It is be-
lieved that there is a psycholOgical arrangement of products in the super
market. The ﬂow of traffic was not considered in this study in determining

the proper location.

Jesse P. Schaudies

In this study, out—of— stock did not prove to be a factor. The relatively
low occurrence of out-of—stock prevented any conclusions being drawn.

The number of facings representing the product categories showed
some interesting trends. Points of maximum return on facings were found
on sanitary items, food wraps, and paper towels. These findings give rise
to a belief that there is a seasonal arrangement in the paper department.

An interesting observation was made between the amount of toilet
tissue, by units, a store sold and the total amount of paper sales, by units,
for that same store. The percentage of total toilet tissue sales by each store
in relation to the total toilet tissue sales by all stores correlated to the per-
centage of total paper sold by each store in relation to the total paper sales
by all stores. This correlation of coefficient was found to be .995.

The author hopes that the methodology used in this study and the trends
related to the hypothesis will be of value to both manufacturer and retailer in
further evaluating and studying the paper department in today's modern super

market .

" The Food Distribution program at Michigan
State University is under the sponsorship of
the National Association of Food Chains"

A STUDY OF THE PAPER DEPARTMENTS IN

SELECTED SUPER MARKETS

By

Jesse Pike Schaudies

A THE SIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of General Business

Curriculum in Food Distribution

1955

 

1-

,m acts;

.—-—-....._.-J

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the fol-
lowing members of the staff of Michigan State University; Dr. David J.
Luck, Professor of Marketing; Dr. E. A. Brand. Director Curriculum in
Food Distribution; and to Dr. Donald A Taylor, Assistant Professor of
Marketing, for their interest and valuable assistance in preparing this thesis.

For the opportunity of attending Michigan State University. the
author will forever be indebted to Scott Paper Company.

Finally, the author would like to express his deep appreciation and
A love to his wife, Adele, for her understanding, suggestions and indulgences

during the preparation of this thesis.

Jesse Pike Schaudies

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I PAGE

I. Introduction ......................... 1

Purpose of the Study ................... 2

Statement of the Problem ................. 2

,11’ Description of Methodology ................. 4

Selection of Stores .................... 4

Audit Form ........................ 4

Procedure of Audit Forms ................ 4

Determining the Location of Paper Department . . . . 5

Limitations of Study ................... 5

Brief Description of Stores . - ............... 6

III. Findings ........................... 7

Hypothesis I - Location ................. 7

Hypothesis II - Out-of—Stock .............. 8

Hypothesis llI - Number of Facings .......... ll
Correlation Between Total Paper and

Toilet Paper Sales .................. 22

IV. Summary and Recommendations .............. 23

Hypothesis 1 - Location ............... 23

Hypothesis II - Out-of—Stock ............. 24

Hypothesis III - Number of Facings .......... 25

Correlation Between Total Paper and
Toilet Paper Sales ..................

Appendix .............................

Bibliography

LIST OF CHARTS

CHART PAGE
Ia ............................... 9
lb ............................... 10
II ............................... 15

III ............................... 16

IV ............................... 17

v f ............................... 18

VI ............................... 19

VII ........................... '. . . .20

VIII .............. I ............. . . . .21

IX ............................... 39

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PA CE

I ................................. 12-14

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The year 1955 marks the twenty—fifth anniversary of the super
market. The growth of this industry in the past twenty-five years has been
tremendous. The sales volume for the food industry has advanced from a
mere five billion dollars in 1930 to a figure of over 36 billion dollars in 1954.1

Paralleling this rise in dollar volume, has been the cost of opening
a new, fully equipped, super market. In I930 it was possible to open a fully
equipped market for $2, 000, while today the investment in equipment alone
is over $150, 000. 2 This rise in equipment needs was made necessary by
new innovations in food merchandising and handling. Frozen food cases of
over 100 feet may be found in many of today's super markets. Produce de-
partments featuring fresh fruits and vegetables from every section of the
United States and some foreign countries are becoming a common sight in the
modern super market.

With the added importance of such departments as the health and beauty

aids, hardware and soft wear sections, some authorities see the modern

 

1. Robert W. Mueller, "22nd Annual Progressive Grocery Survey, "
Progressive Grocer, March 1955, Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 42.

 

2. "The 1955 Chain Store Age Equipment Preview, ” Chain Store Age.
December 1954, Vol. 30, No. 12, p. 42.

 

super market as a big "general store." Mr. M. M. Zimmerman, Editor

of Super Market Merchandising says:

 

"In many ways the real predecessor of the super

market in American merchandising is the old trading post.

The super market, to a startling degree, is nothing but the

trading post grown to Gargantuan proportions. "3

In the fast moving food industry, it is difficult for even the largest
of chains to remain abreast of all new inventions and ideas. Because of the
speed with which this industry has grown, the author believes that some de-
partments in the grocery section of the super market have not advanced to
the high degree that they should have.

It is the author's belief that the paper department in super markets
has not kept pace with the growth in proportion to the other departments.

The purpose of this thesis is-to attempt to establish a few of the rea-
sons why the volume in one paper department of a super market is larger
than the volume of the paper department in another super market.

Basically this study may be called a pilot study, since to the author's
knowledge no extensive survey of this type has been conducted previous to
this time. From a marketing research standpoint, the general problem was
to devise a method to determine what factors inﬂuence the sales volume of
paper products in super markets.

Based on the general problem, three hypothesis were considered:

1. Location of the paper department has some bearing on the sales

volume of paper in super markets.

 

3. M. M. Zimmerman, The Super Market, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., New York, 1955, p. 19.

 

2. Out-of—stock conditions have some bearing on the volume of paper
department sales.
3. The number of facings representing the product categories has

some inﬂuence on the sales of these categories.

CHAPTER .11

DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY

Selection of Stores

 

Nine super markets were selected from a north—central trading area
with a population of approximately 163, 000. The retail sales estimate for
food merchandising stores was $31, 538, 000 annually. No store was selected
that had an annual sales volume of less than $250, 000. The actual selection
of the stores was done strictly on a judgment basis.

Audit Forms

The paper department in each selected store was audited on a "whole
population" basis. Each audit form was divided into eight product cate-
gories: toilet tissue, facial tissue, food wraps, paper towels, paper nap-
kins, sanitary items, picnic supplies, and miscellaneous items. The brands
carried by each selected store were recorded under their respective cate-
gories so that each audit form was as uniform as possible. A sample of the

audit form will be found in the Appendix.

Procedure for Audit Form

 

The first day, the brands in the various categories were recorded

along with the price, the physical count on the shelves and the backroom

stock was taken. The number of facings for each brand was also counted.
The second day any change in the price was noted and recorded along with a
change in facings. A physical count was again made on the shelves and in

the backroom to determine the unit sales from one day to the next. Each sur-
veyor inventoried the paper department of his store precisely the same time
each day; however, the time of day that the different stores were inventoried

varied with each individual.

Determining the Location of the Paper Department

 

In order to have a logical system of determining the location of the
paper departments in relationship to each other in the different stores, a grid
system was established. Each store was divided into nine equal sections or
grids and the nine grids were labeled A through I. The paper department of

the nine surveyed stores lay in one of the nine different grids. The paper

department of only one store was located so as to cut across grid lines.

Limitations of Study

 

The author is aware that since the survey was conducted during the
summer months the information obtained may not be indicative of information
which may be obtained at other times of the year. _ Furthermore, observa—
tions for only two weeks may not be adequate to reﬂect conditions over a longer
period of time. The sample used was small when compared to the whole. pop-
ulation, but for the location of the survey the nine stores represented the
largest share of business.

As was stated earlier, the survey was conducted over a two week period.

One week's sales reﬂected a pay week for the area, whereas the second week
did not. Observations were recorded from Tuesday to Tuesday in order to
reﬂect the Saturday sales for the two weeks.

It is believed, however, that benefits may be derived from the method-
ology used in conducting this survey. It was not the intent of the author to
prove the hypothesis, nor to make final and conclusive statements about the

findings, but rather to show what trends may be apparent.

Brief Description of Stores

 

The selected stores were similar in many respects. All of the stores
were located in middle income neighborhoods within the selected trading
areas. Only one store had what was considered an inadequate parking lot.

The selling area for the nine stores varied from 8, 000 square feet
to 19, 000 square feet. Actual paper department measurements ranged from

30 linear feet to 48 linear feet.

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY

The findings will be discussed in the order of the hypotheses esta—
blished.

Hypothesis I

 

Location of the paper department has some bearing on the sales
volume of paper in super markets.

Although Chart I would seem to indicate that location "D" is perhaps
the best for the paper department, location '"'E cannot be discounted. Both
locations, "D" and ”E", are in the left center of the store. Since this con-
stitutes approximately 22 percent of the store, it is thought that perhaps a
grid system with 18 different locations should have been used to pinpoint
the location more ade quately.

There are other variables that enter into the location of the paper
department. One important variable is the neighboring departments of the
paper department. In seven of the nine stores the paper departments were
located across the aisle or next to the soap department. The other two were
closer to the beverage department.

An interesting observation was made in store E concerning location.

For the first week of observations store E's paper department was located

CHART Ia

 

 

E‘F

 

Left Side of Store

CHART Ib

BACK

10

 

 

G

 

1...;

 

H

 

 

 

FRONT

Location of lettered grid squares assigIed to surveyed stores.

Right Side of Store

ll

Hypothesis III

 

The number of facings representing the product categories has some
inﬂuence on the sales of these categories.

The average number of facings for the eight product categories was
computed for the two weeks survey period. A wide variance of facings was
noted for each category.

Charts #2 through #8 show the grouping of facings for the various
paper product categories along with their average percentages of dollar
sales for the number of facings. For the toilet tissue category, the findings
show very little besides the fact that additional surveys should be conducted.

a

In computing the percentage of average dollar sales of sanitary items,
food wraps, and paper towels to average total dollar sales by facings, a
point of maximum returns was found For sanitary items, the highest per-
centage of dollar sales was reached with from 14 to 20 facings. Food
wraps and paper towels reached their peak with 15 to 21 facings. A number
of hypothetical suggestions may be offered for the variations in these three
categories:

‘ 1. Few additional sales are realized after a certain number of
facings has been utilized.

2. The location of the product on the shelf stimulates the sales
independent of the number of facings.

3. Certain brands will sell in large quantities regardless of number
of facings.

4. Toilet tissue is a staple product and the percentage of total paper

is not affected by the number of facings.

TABLE I 12

DOLLAR SALES OF PRODUCT CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE

STORE'S TOTAL DOLLAR PAPER SALES B'Y FACINGS

Toilet Tissue

 

Facings $ Sales T.T. 55 Sales paper %

1-10 * .00 *.00 * .00
ll - 20 275.14 781.16 35.22
21 - 30 253.05 846.89 29.88
31 - 40 236.58 761.99 31.05
41 - 50 848.85 2794.80 30.37

Facial Tissue

 

 

l - 5 * .00 * .00 * .00

6 -10 146.69 781.16 18.78
11 - 15 - 124.86 751.47 16.62
16-20 - 284.53 1974.47 14.41
Food Wraps

l -- 7 129.34 883.88 14.63

8 - 14 202.54 1391.13 14.56
15 - 21 158.18 881.30 17.95
22~28 * .00 * .00 * .00
29 - 35 111.09 781.16 14.22

Paper Towels

 

l - 7 44.02 831.70 5.29
8 ~ 14 57.25 748.75 7.65

15 -21 128.11 1154.15 11.10

22-28
29-35

Paper Napkins

 

1-5
6-10
11~-15
16-20
21-25
22222
1-6
7-13
14-20
21~27
28-34

Picnic Items

 

 

l - 10

ll - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

Miscellaneous
1 - 2

3-5

56.

222.

63.

at:

210.

45.

75.

135.

207.

40.

82.

517.

32.

44

29

.00

27

.00

.00

10

34

48

20

.00

14

94

42

.00

.00

.00

49

.38

55.

545.

2794.

857.

1670.

575.

832 .

1127.

2794.

545.

803.

2794.

881

1582.

95

80

.00

79

.00

.00

37

50

64

66

.00

80

94

82

.00

.00

.00

.30

31

10.

12.

10.

18.

34

.95

.00
.38
.00

.00

58

.88

.07

.99

.00

.41

.50

25

.00

.00

.00

52

.16

.06

13

6- 8 11.97 828.47

9 -11 36.40 1127.66

* No observations were made with these facings.

3.23

14

Percentage of Average Dollar Sales of Toilet Tissue to 15
vera

 

Percentage of Average Dollar Sales of Sanitary Items to 16 i
Avera Total Dollar Sales Fac i

 

 

1"
u

Percentage of Average Dollar Sales of Food Wrap to
Avera Total Dollar Sales Fac

 

 

 

”a

 

v-vl

Percentage of Average Dollar Sales of Paper Towels to
Avera Total Dollar Sales Fac

 

Percentage of Average Dollar Sales of Paper Napkins to 19

 

Percentage of Average Dollar Sales of Picnic Items to 20
Avera Total Dollar Sales Fae

 

Ennis." 1 __ 1n 11 an A1 an A. AA .2 .. __

Percentage of Average Dollar Sales of Facial Tissues to

21

 

 

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From any survey of this type many questions and hypotheses are
raised. It would be fallacious to assume that any concrete conclusions
might be drawn frOm the small sample used in this survey. The survey
can, however, serve as a guide and as a study in methodology for further

observation in the paper departments of super markets.

Hypothesis I

 

Information obtained concerning the location of the paper department
in super markets stimulates the imagination. Perhaps there is an ideal
location for this department. It is conceivable that sales in the paper depart-
ment are stimulated when located in close proximity to the soap department
regardless of their location in the store. Departments other than the soap
department may have an equal inﬂuence on the sale of paper in different sea-
sons. The author feels that additional study would bear out some of these
hypotheses to the advantage of both manufacturer and retailer.

The use of 18 grids might not be sufficient in all sizes of stores. A grid
system set up in consideration of traffic ﬂow within the store would prove to be

of more value. It would be ideal if a group of controlled stores could be utilized

24

for future study. The paper department could then be moved at designated
time intervals to different locations within the stores for the purpose of
testing the effect of each location. Other departments could be moved to test
the companionship of the paper department to these departments. The author
would like to believe that there is a psychological order for the arrangement
of a super market and that the paper department has one or more definite

locations wherever it may be.

Hypothesis II

 

Out-of- stock conditions have plagued the manufacturer and retailer
for years. This condition, however, seems to have improved in the last
few years. Many studies have been conducted on "brand out-of- stock" but
this does not show the out-of— stock on individual package sizes. It was the
author's hope that this study might reveal some trend on out-of-stock on in-
divid ual packages. This, however, could not be accomplished because of
the rare out-of-stock conditions found in the stores.

The chances of the super market experiencing an out-of—stock condi-
tion on paper products seems to be rather high. It was observed in the nine
stores that shelf stocks were allowed to go drastically low before adding
another case. When the stock men were questioned about this practice the
universal answer was that they did not want to leave half of a case in the stock
room. By close scrutiny this idea tends to evolve two hypotheses. The first
of these would be that the shelf space for the paper department is not adequate.
The second would be that the manufacturer is not packing the paper in con-

venient size cases.

25

Hypothesis III

 

Proper space allocation cannot be over-emphasized in today's super
markets. Many store managers are beginning to realize that some of their
shelf space is wasted as far as productivity goes. Since productiveness of
shelf space is so vital to the operation and progress of the modern super mar-

ket, and since a maximum of efficiency is the best guarantee of maximum

productiveness, studies on space allocation are of great value in store layout
and store allocation plans.

From this study of nine stores it was found that a point of maximum

.1 :xxr'n-o‘a I

return in facings was present in three of the eight product categories. This 1
is far from conclusive evidence that such a maximum return point does

exist. Here again additional surveys would have to be made to prove this

hypothesis.

This study also seems to indicate that perhaps a seasonal arrange-
ment for the paper department would be advantageous. If a point of maximum
returns on facings for the product categories of paper towels, food wraps
and sanitary items could be established, the additional space could be given
to seasonal items such as paper napkins and picnic items. From the graphs,
paper napkins seem to follow the same trend as picnic items. The author
does not believe, however, that paper napkins are as seasonal as picnic
items.

No study on facings or space allocation would be complete without
considering brand preference in paper products. It is conceivable that

ten facings comprised of two brands of a product would yield more gross

26

profit than fifteen facings comprised of five brands. Unfortunately, time

did not allow a breakdown by brands for the nine stores studies in this survey.

Correlation Between Total Paper and Toilet Paper Sales

 

Although the correlation between the store's total toilet paper sales
and their percentage of total paper business is revealing, it is of little value , r—
until additional surveys are conducted. The author has knowledge of another
survey being conducted on the paper departments of six additional super l
markets in another trading area. The same two variables that correlated E
to .9983 in the author's survey, correlated to 989 in the other trading area.
Both of these correlations would fall in the one-tenth of one percent level of
significance.

An interesting analogy to this study on correlation would be the effect
an increase in toilet tissue sales would have on total paper sales. Relying
solely on the statistical proof of the correlations, the two variables are not
independent. Only additional sampling will prove whether or not the two
variables are dependent.

There are many studies that can be made through marketing research
to aid both the manufacturer and retailer. Mr. A. C. Nielsen in his 1954 re-

port to retail food stores listed nine areas where earnest research is needed.

 

4. Ronald Fisher and Frank Yates, Statistical Tables for Biological,
Agricultural and Medical Research, Table VI, "The Values of Coefficient
of Correlation for Different Levels of Significants, " Hafner Publishing
Company, Inc., New York, 4th Edition, 1953, p. 54.

 

 

27

Consumer buying habits

Consumer motivation

Variations in shopping days

Frequency of shopping visits

Characteristics of shoppers

Choosing store locations

Improving display methods

Improving package designs

Proper inventory levels in store and warehouse5

It is the author's hope that the methodology used and the trends shown
in this survey may prove to be advantageous to both manufacturer and re-

tailer.

 

5. "The Nielsen Report to Retail Food Stores, " A. C. Nielsen
Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1954, p. 35.

APPENDIX

Audit Form Used For Surveying Stores

Name of Store

 

Location of Store

 

 

Date and Time of Audit

 

29

30

No. on No. in Total units
BRANDS 1. Price 2. Facings 3. shelves 4.backroom 5. beginning

Toilet Tissue
Food Wraps
Facial Tissues
Paper Napkins
Paper Towels
Picnic Items
Paper Plates
Paper Cups
Straws

Spoons and
Forks

Sanitary Items
Sandwich 8: Garbage Bags
Shelf Rolls 8: Lining

Baking Cups

31

Date Tim e_

 

 

Previous No. on No. in
Inventory Facing shelf Backroom Total Received N0. sold

TOTAL PAPER SALES IN DOLLARS

32

 

Location of Toilet Facial Food Paper Paper
Store Paper Dept. Date Tissue Tissue Wraps Towels Napkins
A D 7/19 450.19 183.21 111.14 126.35 116. 84
7/26 398.66 170.32 230.25 95.94 138.13
Total 848. 85 353.53 341.39 222.29 254. 97
B I 7/19 196.26 84.28 45.36 30.20 28.72
7/26 ___78.88 “62.41 65.73 ___17.10 23.29
Total 275.14 146.69 111.09 47.30 52.01
C E 7/19 143.27 109.37 57.73 12.90 16.44
7/26 _1_35.44 _69.60 100.45 17.16 21.07
Total 278.71 178.97 158.18 30.06 37. 51
D E 81 F 7/19 73.17 24.95 35.98 23.63 112.51
7/26 55.95 39. 84 39. 33 32.81 __5_2__7_1_
Total 129.12 64. 79 75.31 56.44 165.22
E I 7/19 47. 81 24.72 19.76 2.99 6. 83
7/26 84.25 37.20 21.14 8.28 20.59
Total 132.06 61.92 40.90 11.27 27.42
F B 7/19 136.34 62.27 116.87 25.65 26.48
7/26 140.97 54.97 _74.05 29.06 25.19
Total 277.31 117.24 190.92 54. 71 51.67
C E 7/19 229.94 112.35 30.24 67.27 66.31
7/26 _1_51.16 103.19 133.23 60. 84 30.43
Total 341.10 215.54 163.47 128.11 96. 76
H B 7/19 161.73 128.67 68.37 82.14 64.22
7/26 165.33 81.69 115.38 21.09 44.65
Total 327.06 210.36 183.75 103.23 108. 85
I D 7/19 158.27 81.92 146.87 31.01 51.34
7/26 184.20 213.14 96.74 46.54 63.22
Total 342.47 295. 06 243. 61 77. 55 114. 56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a"Sanitary Items not located in paper departments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sani - Picnic Total
tary Items Misc. Dollars
112.40 322.03 41.38 1463.54
~94.74 195.46 7.76 1331.26
207.14 517.49 49.14 2794.80
14.96 39.21 1.05 440.11
30.36 _§2_19 _;82 _341.05
45.59 101 47 1.87 781.16
70.07 29.08 .69 439.55
52.62 '44;72_ __;62_ .44l.75
122.69 73.80 1.38 881.30
’- - 25.47 7.56 304.25
*- - 15.57 _5;58_ 241.69
40.94 13.14 545.94

14.63 12.61 7.80 137.15
30.45 22.62 _8.15 232.68
45.08 35 23 15.95 369.83
36.67 23.81 6.94 435.03
38.81 28.07 6.49 397.61
75.48 51 88 13.43 832.64
‘-—- 103.01 10.95 620.07
* - - 46.71 _8.50 534.08
149.72 19.45 1154.15

70.26 36 40 8.75 620.54
64.94 —- ;_ 14.16 _507.12
135.20 36.40 22.91 1127.66
* - - 98.90 7.30 575.61
* - - 82.28 _1;l5 687.37
171.28 8.45 1262.98

33

34

Percent of Store Paper Volume in Dollars to Total Paper Volume
' of All Stores

 

Toilet Facial Food Paper Paper Sani - Picnic Total
Store Tis sue TiSs ue Wrap Towel Napkins Tary Item s Misc . %
A 28.3 21.5 22.6 30.4 28.0 32.8 43.9 33.7 28.6
B“ 9.1 8.9 7.3 6.4 5.7 7.2 8.6 1.2 8.0
C 9.3 10.8 10.4 4.1 4.1 19.4 6.2 .9 9.0
D 43 39 49 7.7 181 -- 34 90 55
E 44 37 27 15 3.0 71 29109 37
F 9.2 7.1 12.6 7.4 5.6 11.9 4.4 9.2 8.5
G 12.7 13.1 10.8 17.5 10.6 - - 12.7 13.3 11.8

H 10.9 12.7 12.1 14.1 11.9 21.4 3.0 15.7 11.5

I 11.4 17.9 16.1 10.6 12.6 - - 14.5 5.7 12.9

35

TOTAL PAPER SALES BY UNITS

 

Toilet Facial Food Paper Paper Sani- Picnic Total
Store Tissue Tissue Wrap Towel Napkins tary Items Misc. Units
A 3852 968 391 648 772 180 1027 150 7988
3233 845 843 481 923 166 _684 _3_4 _7208
_ 7085 1813 1234 1129 I695 345 1711 184 15196
B 1454 395 166 162 167 30 376 9 2759
.282 222 222 -26. 22 22 222 .2 221.2.
1936 660 393 248 319 73 633 13 4275
C 951 424 223 65 82 85 102 3 1935
867 1.22 223. -92 1.1.9 .72 1.22 2 1222
1818 609 556 156 201 158 255 6 3759
D 724 137 118 118 397 - - 147 48 1689
801 228. .122 1.7.2 1.92 -- .22 22 1292
1225 343 243 291 591 192 96 2971
E 450 102 76 16 35 21 50 36 786
880 :22 .82 22 :22 22 -22 22 1428
1300 257 158 61 177 56 134 71 2214
F 904 239 341 129 92 63 80 49 1897
1101 212 222 :22 :21 .72 :22 2: 2062
2205 455 578 267 219 142 213 80 3959
G 1472 592 112 345 299 - - 583 85 3488
1423 229. 2.1.2 222 222 -- 222 .22 8114
2895 981 625 649 502 789 161 6602
H 1625 479 288 416 373 124 169 83 3557
1071 26.2 226. 1.0.2 222 .92 -_-.- .22 2810
2696 848 634 520 616 219 169 165 5867
1 1403 423 555 159 282 - — 335 31 3157
27.22 894 29.2 222 292 -- 2.72 -2 8848
3153 1326 945 397 574 608 39 7002

Percent of Store Paper Volume in Units to Total Paper Volume of all Stores

36

 

Toilet Facial Food Paper Paper Sani - Picnic Total

_Store Tissue Tissue Wrap Towel Napkins tary Item 5 Misc. %
A 29.0 24.9 22.9 30.3 34.6 34.7 36.3 27.5 29.3
B 8.0 9.1 7.3 6.0 6.5 7.3 13.4 1.5 8.3
C 7.5 8.3 10.3 4.1 4.1 15.9 5.4 .7 7.3
D 5.0 4.7 4.5 7.8 12.0 -- 4.0 11.7 5.7
E 5.4 3.5 2.9 1.6 3.6 5.6 2.8 8.7 4.3
F- 9.1 6.2 10.7 7.1 4.4 9.3 4.5 9.8 7.6
G 11.0 13.5 11.6 17.4 10.2 - - 16.7 19.7 1 12.7
H 11.1 11.6 11.8 13.9 12.5 22.0 3.5 20.2 11.3
I 13.0 18.1 17.6 10.6 11.7 - - 12.9 4.7 13.5

37

Derived Percentage
Computed Total Computed Average Average Weekly of Paper Sales by

 

Annual Sales Weekly Sales Paper Product Stores of Total

_Store by Stores by Stores Sales by Stores Sales by Stores
A 1,927,000.00 38, 540. 00 1,397. 40 3. 63
B 352,000.00 7, 040.00 390. 58 5. 55
C 564, 000. 00 11, 080. 00 440. 65 3.97
D 611,000.00 12,222.00 272.97 2.23
E 264,000.00 5,280.00 184.92 3.50
F 940,000.00 18,800.00 416.32 2.21
G 893, 000. 00 17,260.00 577.08 3. 34

H 564, 000.00 11,080.00 563. 83 5.09

38

Average Facings By Product Categories for all Stores

Toilet Facial Food Paper Sani - Picnic

 

Store Tissue Tissue Wraps Towels Napkins tary Items Misc.
A 43.5 16.7 ' 9.3 32.8 23.4 31.1 5.2 3.0
B 19.3 9.8 31.6 6.6 7.6 6.3 16.8 8.0
C 23.0 14.0 19.0 2.7 6.5 - - - 13.5 1.0
D 26.7 13.1 V 8.0 24.8 - 22.8 - - - 6.0 6.0
E 30.5- 12.5 5.5 8.0 6.5 6.0 17.0 3.0
F 22.5 11.2 4.0 7.5 7.0 8.0 14.1 7.0
G 37.9 18.8 7.0 16.7 7.7 - - - 14.6 6.3
H 21.6 11.7 7.0 8.2 9.1 14.0 - - - 11.4
I 33.5 26.7 9.9 23.3 5.9 - - - 23.4 5.0

:51»; k _~—1-;Ao‘1.*~uﬁ‘!' . v. -'
.

 

 

 

 

4J3

 

 

39

 

CHART IX

Percent of paper department sales in
proportion to dollar volume by location

. in paper department.

 

 

 

 

 

Total T. P.

7,085
1,936
1,818
1,225
1.300
2,005
2, 895
2, 696

3,153

Average percentage

Standard deviation

Percentage of Toilet Tissue Unit Sales to Total Unit Sales

Total Paper

 

15,196

4,275
3, 759
2,971
2,214
3,959
6,602
5, 867

7, 002

47.29 7,,

4. 745

46.

45.

48.

41.

58.

50.

43.

46.

45.

41

Derivation of Correlation of Coefficient
of the Two Variables - Toilet Tissue
Unit Percentages and Total Unit Paper Sales

 

 

 

8x x2 Y Y2 ‘XY
29.0 841.00 29.3 858.49 849.60
8.0 64.00 8.3 68.89 66.46
7.5 56.25 7.3 53.29 54.75
5.0 25.00 5.7 32.49 28.50
5.4 29.16 4.3 18.49 23.22
9.1 82.81 7.6 57.76 69.16
11.9 141.61 12.7 161.29 151.13
11.1 123.21 11.3 127.69 125.43
13.0 169.00 13.5 182 25 175.50
100.11 1,532.04 100.0 1,560.64 1,543.79

Formula:l r = \‘21” iy"
IV

2):}: 1,543.79 - 1111.11
9

227: 482.68
fx" 8 ZXLML
N

22’8 =1,532.04 -1111.11
9
2x7” = 420.93

 

1. Frederick Emory Croxton and Dudley Johnstone Cowden, Applied General

 

Statistics, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York 1955, p. 465.

2y" = £7,212.12:
N
27* 7“ 1,560.64 - 111g

9
2 71 = 449.53

(i H):

IA" £42. £71

r"= (432. 68)2
420. 93 x 449. 53

1
I" ‘ 187,211.98

 

189,220.66
#3: .9894
7» = /.9894
1- = .9952

2. The significance of increased correlation coefficient is .001.
This is equivalent to the "T" test of the regression.

42

BIBLIOGRAPHY -

Books

 

Croxton, Frederick Emory and Cowden, Dudley Johnstone, Applied General
Statistics, New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955.

 

Fisher, Ronald and Yates, Frank. Statistical Tables for Biological,
Agricultural and Medical Research, Table VI, "The Values of
Coefficient of Correlation for Different Levels of Significants",
New York: Haﬁier Publishing Company, Inc. , 4th Edition, 1953.

 

 

Zimmerman, M. M. The Super Market, New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1955.

 

Periodicals

 

Mueller, Robert W. , "22nd Annual Progressive Grocery Survey", Progressive

 

Grocg; March 1955, Vol. 34, No. 3.

Pamphlets

"The 1955 Chain Store Age Equipment Preview", Chain Store Age,
December 1954, Vol. 30, No. 12.

 

"The Nielsen Report to Retail Food Stores", A. C. Nielsen Company,
Chicago, Illinois, 1954.

U “I a!

-?.¢n-p——Sm“ I A-.. B: ‘_ LAM-7.4:!
-

 

' 2 8 " a? 8::
T: 1'“: I .7 ' "8 E 3...;1.
8‘15 11' iii 1.14.2 _. ‘11.

Date Due

 
  
  

Jun19 ,

up

1“* I"
. - I

Demco-293

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

111111le

369383

I”

3 1293