OBTABNING RETAII. FLOWER SALES ENFORMATION BY MEANS OF AN “IN-5H6?" SYSTEMATIC SAMPLING METHGD 11mm hr the my“ 0? Ph. D. MICHEGAN ST“ATE UNWERSETY Ear! H. New 1960' filiblfj This is to certify that the thesis entitled CBEWILIKG BELWIIL FLCHER S'ALES IHFCRNATIOE BY MEANS CF AN "IE-SHOP” SYSTEMATIC SWMlLIKG NETHCD presented by EARL H. HEW has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _E}.L_D_ degree in ‘ ,Afié’zéa /q)/C{W(\ Major professor / Date 11,41; Ker l?7. It: 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSI'RACT OBl'AlNING RETAIL FLOWER SALES INFORMATION B! MEANS OF AN "IN-$0?” SYSTEMATIC SAMPLING METHOD by M]. R. New Statistical validation of a froquency sampling method became a prerequisite for further retail flower sales investigation in 1957. The sampling method was designed to reduce the tremendous volume of individual sales data that were being collected from 12 selected Michigan flower sheps. The validation of the sampling method was imperative for contiming and more efficient and effective study of the effect of alternative managerial decisions and methods on retail florists ' business. To do this a factorial design was used. Records of 50,582 individual retail sales made over a period of seven months in the 12 shops were arranged into 58 categories. They were recorded on mark sense International Business Machine cards, and sampled by three methods. The methods, based on 10 per cent frequency sampling, were: (a) "In-Shop" systematic, in which the systematic samples were identified as the population was recorded in the shops. (b) Stratified raniom, selected on a 1:07 IHI machine from the complete deck of cards. (c) Systematic, selected in the same manner as (b). wily two of the 58 categories were selected for statistical validation of the sapling method. They were "all retail sales” and ”arrangement 1 2 Bar]. B. New sales." These two categories were the only ones which provided a wide "range of frequency of occurrence and value data for each shop each month. Within these two classifications, each sampling method was compared statistically with the others an! the population. This was done to determine the sanple sine and sample method that is most efficient for identification an! estimation of the variation within the pepulation. Data from the 12 shops, when arranged into two areas of six shops each, showed extranely high 1" values for variation among shops. There were lesser 1" values for variation between the two areas and among the seven. months. ”All retail sales" showed a greater amount of variation among months than did "arrangement sales.“ Amlysis for differences among the three sampling methods showed no significant differences. Further analysis for frequency level confidence using 10, 20, 30, to ani SO frequencies replicated five times showed no sampling method differences. The "Mop" systematic method, therefore, was selected for imiividual sales analysis of each of these levels. This analysis yielded high significance at the ho and SO frequency levels. Further comparison with the population values for these same frequencies, yielded significance at to am high significance at 50 frequencies. These frequency levels are higher than those indicated in the literature to be necessary for validation in the case of a normal frequency distribution. Skewness of distribution is the probable reason for the higher frequency level needed for significance in these data. 3 Earl H. New In order to obtain reliable information about retail flower sales, these recumnendations can be made: (a) At least to to 50 frequencies of occurrence need to be recorded in each category, such as the frequency of sales for birthdays for any month. , (b) About 5,000 total orders or items need to be recorded per area or unit urder observation per year. This sanple mmber will need to be increased with each segmmtation if gmater detail is desired. . (c) The data from flower shops being investigated should have a similar skewness of distribution of sales to use these standards. / Other intervals of sampling probably. can be used, provided the above precautiom are met. Raising the total amber in the sample or canbinim smie categories may be necessary in order to meet the requirenients for minimum frequencies for reliability. - Percentage fluctuations from the population by the "Mop" systematic samples in general follow a pattern of low frequency-higher fluctuation, high frequency-lower fluctuation. Organizations in the florist and allied irdustries with punched card equipaent can also avail themselves of such sampling techniques provided they observe the proper precautions of minimum frequencies in each classification where information is desired. OBTAINING RETAIL FIDWER SALES ‘ INFORMATION BI MEANS OF AN "IN-SKOP" SYSTEMATIC SAMPLING METHOD By a “‘ m1 “0' r New A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment. of the requirements for the degree of DOCTCB 0F mnosom Department of Horticulture 1960 J I?!) ' -v-u‘ I‘m ‘ 6 /éd3<fi93 7/2559 59/ ACKNOWLEDGMEITS The writer wishes to express his appreciation of the Opportunity to study for arri obtain his Ph.D. degree to Prof. Paul R. Krone who through his offer of an instructorship in research provided the means by which this could be accomplished. Additional thanks are due Prof. Krone for the suggestions that he has made arxl the role that he has played as chairman of the guidance conmittee. Thanks are also due to the other members of the guidance committe, Doctors '1. J. Haney, R. F. Stimson, D. H. Dewey, B. C. French and W. J. lchmvell who helped formulate the program of study and to Doctors H. E. Larzelere, William Lazer and D. P. Watson who filled canmittee vacancies left by Doctors French, McDowell and Dewey. Additional thanks are due to L. J. Tolls, Jr. for the many hours spent in discussion of a floriculture marketing discipline concept, the formulation of the IBM mark sense cards used in the study whose format was determined largely by data collected during 1956 by Mr. Tone and the writer, and aid in collecting much of the data used for this thesis; to El. Parvin for his aid in sipplying information used as backgrouni in portions of the discussion of this thesis; to Donald Partenfelter, Robert Dennison, Carol Jones, AlBotamer and Jim Ionsway who aided in gathering and processing the 1m cards; and to the patient persons in the Tabulating department, Hrs. Norma Ray, Burton Waldecker and Francis Martin, who freely gave advice and assistance in regards to procedure aui machine operation, and provided equipnent for processing the data. ii TABLE gr: comsnrs . _ Page IMRODUCTIONIOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 1 REVIEW OF IITERATURE............................................. 2 METHODS AND MATERIALS............................................ lS RESUDTS.......................................................... 22 DISCUSSION....................................................... 26 sunnrnr.......................................................... 333 LHMTIJRE CHmOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO00.0.0.0... 33D TABI‘ECOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.......0... 31‘ iii Table II III VII VIII TABLES Frequency and value of all retail sales from the 12 selected Michigan retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Frequency and value of arrangement sales from the 12 selected Michigan retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shape for the months of July‘195? through January 1958...... Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales . in the six "In-Jackson” retail flower shops for ., the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Analysis of variances for Tables III and IV....--o-.oo- ”Out-of-Jackson"—-”In—Jackson" area comparison based on three 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales whose averages are redorded in Tables III and IV................. Analysis of variance for Table V....................... Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent systematic samples of all retail sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent systematic samples of all retail sales in the six "Ianackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January l958.......... Analy818 0f variances for Tables VI and VIIeeoe¢0°""' "Out-of-Jackson"-"In-Jacksonf area comparison based on three 10 per cent systematic samples of all retail sales whose averages are recorded in Tables VI and VIIeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooeooo Analysis of variance for Table VIII..................... Average frequency and value of three 10 per Cent stratified random samples of arrangement sales in the six "out-of—Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958..- iv Page 3h 35 36 38 39 to bl b2 ht L5 be TABLES, Continued. Table X XII XIII XIV XVI XVII Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent stratified rardom samples of arrangement sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Analysis of variances for Tables IX and X......-----.n "Out-of—Jackson”—"In-Jackson" area comparison based on three 10 per cent stratified random samples of arrangement sales whose averages are recorded in Tables IX an! X................... Analysis of variance for Table XI...................... Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent systematic samples of arrangement sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower Shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958.......... Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent systematic samples of arrangement sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July. 1957 through January l958.......... Analysis of variances for Tables XII and XIII.......... "Out-of-Jackson"-"In-Jackson" area comparison based on three 10 per cent systematic samples of arrangement sales whose averages are recorded in Tables XII and XIII............... Am1y813 Of variance for Table XIV..................... Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... AralySis Of variances for Tables XV and XVIaooooaoaOOOO "0nt-of-Jackson"-—"In-Jackson" area conparison based on two 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales whose averages are recorded in Tables XV and XVIeoooooooooooooeoa \ Analysis of variance for Table XVII.................... v . Page Is? 148 1.9 So 51 52 53 Sb SS 56 S7 58 S9 TABLES, Continued. Table XVIII XXII XXIII XXIV Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent systenatic samples of all retail sales in the six "Out—of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent systematic samples of all retail sales in the six "In—Jackson” retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Analysis of variances for Tables XVIII ard XIX......... "Out-of-Jackson"--"In-Jackson" area comparison based on two 10 per cent systematic samples of all retail sales whose averages are recorded in Tables XVIII and XIX.................. Analysis of variance for Table XX...................... Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent "In-Shop" systematic samples of all retail sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through Jamary 1958.. Average frequency ani value of two 10 per cent "In-Shop" systematic samples of all retail sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Ammis of Variances for Tables XXI and XXII.......... ”Out-of-Jackson"-—"In—Jackson" area comparison based on two 10 per cent "In-Shop" systematic samples of all retail sales whose averages are recorded in Tables XXI and XXII................... Analysis of variance for Table XXIII................... Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent stratified random samples of arrangement sales in the six "Out—of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through; January 1958.. Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent stratified random samples of arrangement sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... Analysis of variances for Tables XXIV and XXV.......... vi Page 61 62 63 6h 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 TABLES, Continued. Table XXVI XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXXI XXXII XXXI II Page "Out-of-Jackson"--"In-Jackson" area comparison based on two 10 per cent stratified random samples of arrangement sales whose averages are recorded in Tables XXIV ard XXV.... ........... 7h Analysis Of variance for Table XXVI-00.000000000000300. 75 Average frequency'and value of two 10 per cent systematic samples of arrangement sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months or Jilly 1957 through January 1958000000 76 Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent systematic samples of arrangement sales in the six ”In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... 77 Analysis of variances for Tables XXVII arri'XXVIII...... 78 ”Out-of-Jackson"-"In-Jackson" area comparison based on two 10 per cent systematic samples - of arrangement sales whose averages are ' recorded in Tables XXVII and XXVIII............... 79 Analysis of variance for Table XXIX.................... 80 Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent "In-Shop" systematic samples of arrangement sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... 81 Average frequency ani value of two 10 per cent "In-8110p" systematic samples of arrangement sales in the six..."In—Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958...... 82 Analysis Of variances for Tables XXX and XXXI..-.-...... 83 "Out-of-Jackson"-"In-Jackson" area comparison based on two 10 per cent "In—Shop" systematic samples of arrangement sales whose averages are recorded in Tables xxx arid XXXIooooooeeooooooo 81‘ Analysis of variance for Table XXXII................... 85 Sampling method comparison based on two 10 per cent samples per method for all retail sales for the "Out-of-Jackson” area. Averages are recorded in Tables XV, XVIII and XXI.............. 86 vii TABLES, Continued 0 Table XXXIV XXXVI X XXVI I XXXVI II XXXIX XL XLI AMIYSis Of variance for Table XXXIIIoooooooooeoooooaoo Sampling method comparison based on two 10 per cent samples per method for all retail sales for the "In-Jackson" area. Averages are recorded in Tables XVI, XIX aXfl XXII.......................... AnalySis 0f variame for Table XXXIV................... Sampling method comparison based on two 10 per cent samples per method for arrangement sales for the "Out-of-Jackson" area. Averages are recorded in Tables XXIV, mII am XXI..................... Analysis of variance for Table XXXV.................... Sampling method comparison based on two 10 per cent samples per method for arrangement sales for the "In-Jackson" area. Averages are recorded in Tables XXV, XXVIII am. Moooooooooooooooooooa AMJJSiS Of variance for Table Wooooooaooooaooooooo‘ Comparison of sample and pOpulation values in five cases of frequencies of 10 in each of the three 10 per cent sampling nethods................ Analysis of variances for Tables XXXVII and XXXIX...... Comparison of population values divided by 10 and sample values of the three 10 per cent sampling methods at a frequency level of 10. These values are taken from Table XXXVII.......... "Analysis of variance for Table XXXVIII................. Comparison of sample and population values in five cases of frequencies of 20 in each of the three 10 per cent sampling methods................ Comparison of population values divided by 10 and sample values of the three 10 per cent sampling methods at a frequency level of 20. These values are taken from Table XXXIX........... Analms 0f variance for Table XLooooooooeeooocoooooooo 0‘ Comparison of sample and population values in five cases of frequencies of 30 in each of the three 10 per cent sampling methOdSOOOOOOoooooooooo viii Page 87 88 89 9O 91 92 93 9h 95 96 97 98 98 99 TABLES, C ontimed a Table Page Analysis of variances for Tables XLI and XLIII......... 100 XLII Comparison of population values divided by 10 and sample values of the three 10 per cent sampling methods at a frequency'level of 30. These values are taken from Table XLI............. 101 mlysm Of variance for Table XLII......................101 XLIII Comparison of sample and population values in five cases of frequencies of 110 in each of the three 10 pr cent Sampling methOdS..............o. 102 XLIV Comparison of population values divided by 10 art! sample values of the three 10 per cent sampling methods at a frequency level of hO. These values are taken from Table XLIIIooooooooooo 1.03 Analysis of variance for Table XLIV.................... 103 XLV Comparison of sample and pepulation values in five cases of frequencies of 50 in each of the three 10 per cent sampling mtmdSOOOOO‘OOOOOooaOOQ 10h AnalySis 0f variance for Table XLVoooooooooooooooooooeo 105 XLVI Comparison of population values divided by 10 ani sample values of the three 10 per cent ' sampling methods at a frequency level of 50. These Values are taken from Table “Vooooooooooeoo 106 Analysis of variance for Table XLVI.................... 106 XLVII Analysis of the five cases of a frequency of 10 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling method column in Table XXXVII............ 107 Analysis Of variance for Table XLVIIooooooooooooooooooo 10? XLVIII Comparison of the five cases of a frequency of 10 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling column in Table XXXVIII with the corresponding pomlation values divided by 10..... 108 ADZIYSIB Of variance for Table XLVIIIOOOOOOO 0 so. a so. o. O 108 XLIX Analysis of the five cases of a frequency of 20 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic . smpling methOd COIUInn in Table MIX. 0 o o 0 so 0 o O O o o 108 TABLES, Contimed. Table LI LIII LV LVI Page mJ‘VSiS Of variants fOI‘ Table XLIXeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooeeee 1.10 Comparison of the five cases of a frequency of 20 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling column in Table XXXIX.with the . corresponding population values divided by 10..... 110 Anal-Wis Of Variame for Table LOCOOOODOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOC 110 Analysis of the five cases of a frequency of 30 which appear in the "In-Shop” systematic sampling mthOd 0011117111 in Table XLIeeeeee eeeee sees 13.]. Analysis of variance for Table LI...................... 112 Comparison of the five cases of a frequency of 30 which appear in the "In—Shop" systematic sampling column in Table XLI with tie corresponding pOpulation values divided by 10..... 113 AmlySiS Of variance for Table LIIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeee 113 Analysis of the five cases of a frequency of 110 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling method column in Table XLIIIeeee_eeeeeeeee 1.1.3 Analysis Of variance for Table LIIIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 115 Comparison of the five cases of a frequency of 140 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling column in Table XLIII math the corresponding population values divided by 10..... 116 Analysis Of variame for Table LIV..................... 116 Analysis of the five cases of a frequency of 50 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling method C0111mn in Table XLVeeeeeeeoeeeoeee 116 mlySis Of variance for Table LVeeeeeeeeeeeee .00 e eeeee 119 Comparison of the five cases of a frequency of 50 which appear in the "In-310p" systematic sampling column in Table XLV with the corresponding population values divided by 10..... 119 Analysis of variance for Table LVI..................... 120 TABLES, Continued . Table Page LVII Percentage relationship of the "In-Shop" systematic samples multiplied by 10, to the population in the C358 (1 all retail saleSooooooooooooooeoooo 121 LVIII Percentage relationship of the "In-ShOp" systematic samples multiplied by 10, to the pomlation in the case of arrangement sales.................. 123 xi OBTAINING RETAIL FLOWER SALES INFCRMKI‘ION B! MEANS OF AN ”IN-SHOP" SYSTMIC SAMPLING METHOD 8! EARL H. NH INPRODUCT ION Statistical validation of a frequency sat-plug method became a prerequisite for further retail flower sales investigation in 1957. The sampling method was designed to reduce the tremendous volume of individual sales data that were being collected from 12 selected Michigan flower shops. The validation of the sampling method as imperative for continuing and more efficient and effective study of the effect of alternative managerial decisions and methods on retail florists' business. It was recognised that validation of any frequency sampling method would require a determination of the minimum frequency of occurrence necessary in' each component part of the desired transaction, occasion ani merchandise categories of this census-type sales data. The establishment Of this minimum was believed to be a necessary bench mark to provide confidence in the sampling method under consideration. The conaemus of the investigators was that the selected method must (a) above all .at the requirements for statistical acceptance, (b) have. in Older to minimize bias, a minimum of response to the various means by 'hich retail florists arrange their records, std (c) be simple in tha musing procedure to avoid all possible errors. The first of these two l""l‘lill‘eulents were determined by the investigators to be a matter for 1 2 statistical analysis. The third requirement strongly iniicated the desirability of using systematic frequency samples of the population to be taken concurrently with the popflation records. Under the coniitions that had been experienced in recording data in flower shop work rooms and offices, equally spaced systematic sampling intervals were deemed to be easier to remember and check than a series of random mmbers would be. It was perceived that a sampling method designed to meet all of the above requirements for this retail florist merchandise sales study could also be used by the larger retail florist, cooperative florist groups, allied industries ani other marketing investigators. m s. mwm Statistical techniques designed for use in marketing studies have undergone considerable refinement in recent years. This brings them mach closer in accuracy of results obtained to the accuracy obtained by the techniques employed in biological research We statistical methods “are first introduced (17, 18, 36). As evidence is accumulated and new cOlmputim machines make it possible to analyse more massive and more complicated data, confidence increases in the accuracy of the results obtained. v'hile there is an abundance of literature in support of these ObservatiOns, that which is in direct reference to floriculture mutating is limited. The limited amount of research reported in floriculture marketing in mostly due to the lack of development of Specialised study in that segment of the broad field of marketing until recently. ‘ 3 Direct references about refined sanpling techniques that are specifically adapted to this study are lacking in retail floriculture literature. Host of the studies in this area have borrowed standard techniques with little adaptation. In perusing the retail floriculture marketing research reports for sampling technique references, it impressed the writer that this literature reflects some of the controversy an! uncertainty that was founi during the early years of the agricultural economic and marketing disciplines. This is amply illustrated in regards to those disciplines by inmmerable articles in the Journal of £112 Econanics and Journal at; Floriculture marketing literature of chief concern to the writer was that which pertained to investigations about merchandise sales an! the Baalpling methods by which results were obtained. This included 'Yocum's "#7) report in 1919 on the seasonal sales pattern of Ohio florists. The atact form of the reports which were mailed in monthly by cooperators Over a period of 13 years was not revealed. The data were indexed am! meaented in chart form. Similar sales data were recorded by Tolle and NewOB), 1959, from sales slips and cash register tapes of six selected Mic higan retail flower shops in 1956. These data were indexed and chArted. The pattern- of these charts closely followed the sales pattern Pl'esented by locum for the years when most of the Easter sales-period falls in March. This chart shows a bicornate peak in tin spring followed by a slumber low and a single peak again for the Christmas period. “KNEW", 191:9, also showed that the typical sales pattern for the h years when most of the Easter sales-period falls in April reduces a chart with a single peak in the spring followed by the same sunmer low and single peak for the Christmas period. New, Tolle and Parvin(28) reported in 1959 that retail merchaniise sales for 12 selected Michigan retail flower shops in 1957, followed this same pattern when they also were indexed and charted. These sales were recorded on mark sense cards fran the sales slips ard register tapes of those shops. Tratter(39) in 1955, used retail florists' opinions for a_base on which to estimate the percentage that funeral and wedding business were in relation to florists' total business. Also based on florists' opinions, Rada's(31), 1952, and von 0ppenfeld's(h3), 1951, estim3tes varied considerably fran Trotter's. Actual relationship of funeral and wedding business to total business was reported by New, Tolle and Parvin(28) in 1959. The actual percentage figures for the 12 selected Hichign flower Shops in the study were lour than the estimates given by Trotter, or Rada or van Oppenfeld. Whether the lower figures were due to more Dr‘ecision fran gathering data fran the sales slips ani register tapes of the florists or due to other factors is unknown. It must be recognized, also, that the demand for flowers for funerals and weddings is by no InGems uniform throughout the United States. Great variations occur in 1”-he relative positions of funeral and wedding flowers to' other flower and merchazdise uses, even among florists within the same city. However, the latter report(28) showed remarkably little seasonal variation in funeral flower sales. ' Tolle and New(38), 1959, reported a similar stability in seasonal Variation of sales of arrangements. Arrangements were defined as being 5 composed of flowers assaubled in containers in contrast to sprays, set designs, casket pieces, corsages, wedding bouquets and loose cut flowers. The containers usually provide a source of water for the flowers. Arrangements compose the greater percentage of flowers sent to funerals in Michigan. Maw arrangements sold by Michigan florists are for funeral purposes. However, many are also used for other occasions, illness, new arrivals, births, anniversaries, birthdays, dinners, am! so on. The seasonal sales pattern for four other classes of merchandise corsages, flowering plants, foliage plants and cut flowers-—-—wcre also presented. These latter classes contributed greatly to the seasonal variation in total sales. The use of opinions on which to base estimates of‘florists' sales is crude an! imccurate. 0n the other hand, too few florists keep their records in a manner which will allow them to provide more accurate information to marketing investigators, so the tenptation is to use the easier method. For greater accuracy and detail the investigator must 80 directly to the individual sales records——-.-the sales slips, “Qatar tapes and account books. In Order to produce meaningful, reliable results the marketing investigator must consider the marketing research sampling tearmiqucs “-1011 relate to (a) the condition. under which it is better to use “mm-ea than the whole population, (b) experimental design, (c) types of mplhe methods, (as limitatiom on validity, (c) methods of validation, (f) achievirg representativeness, (8) reduction of error, ”‘1 (h) the frequency needed for the entire sanple std each breakdown. These or am considerations, however, are of little value when cmde 6 and inaccurate methods are used to obtain information. The techniques mentioned here are the heart and core of modern marketing research and should be adopted and adapted to floriculture marketing if useful and valid results are to be obtained either by means of well structured questionnaires or by direct access to retail florists' records. There is an abundance of coup-ehensive discussions in marketing research books which cover adequately and thoroughly the sapling techniques that have Just been mentioned. A few of the authors are Cochran(10), Forber (16), Hansen, Hurwits and Madow(2l), Hyman(2h), Luck and walee(2s), Smith and Duncan(35), Villars(h2), salon and Ferberath), and IatesUlé). The materials range from elenentary to advanced presentatims of methods of sampling, analysis and mathematical derivations of formlas. Wales and Ferber(hh, 155), 1952, 1956, are recommended as first references for the person who desires a broad background before starting his research. Staph-M37) in 1936 and Cassady(8) in 19115 pointed up the usual criteria used by most researchers in considering the use of samples. Researchers are in general agreement on employing samples when (a) a complete count is impossible or infeasible, (b) a couplets canvass may be impracticable, 0r (c) a couplets enumeration may be unnecessary because measurements can be held within limits of error that are tolerable for the purpose at, hard. There is an abuniance of literature on experimental design that extends back to Ficher(l7), 1925. Brunk(7) in 1958 brought most of the thinking ul‘J-to-date in a discussion on the use of adequate experimental design in marketing research. In his discussion he deplored to use of data from 7 secomlary sources or uncontrolled environnents because of the difficulty encountered in statistical inferences where the computation of confidence limits ani tests of significance are of questionable value. Brunk recognized the difficulty encountered in adapting the experimental theory of statistics, that has been highly developed in the biological sciences(l7, 18, 36), to the gross, dynamic nature of marketing analysis. As a result marketing investigators are looking for solutions to GXperimental design problems which are widely applicable.. Brunk further drew attention to the consumer preference experimental designs used by Abrahamsonl and (lodwin2 from which have evolved the "matched-lot" or "paired comparison" design in use in this work at I" eaent. Brunk also pointed out that experimental designs have reached their highest degree of developnent in marketing research in those cases where the investigators are interested in determining the effect of certain Ill‘actices on the volume of sales. Rotational designs are usually alllployed to maximize control. Latin-square designs were first used in apple sales eXperiments about 191:8, according to Brunk. Factorial denigne have been little used, but properly employed they could explore a much wider range of test variables with limited resources. other types of designs in common use in biological science include Paired plot, split plot, randomized plot and randanized block among Ween, II. A. Commoner Preferences f_9__r _S_____weet Potatoes. N. Car. Expt. Sta. Tech. Web. 1957. 2- Godwin M R Some EconomicA ts of Consum Pa Egg Method 3 e e 838% 01' C 53 a mom e 8 8, arms Us 385‘s of Retail ragga?" 8 . others(36). Harv of these can be and are being specifically adapted to marketing research(10, 16, 21, 2h, 25, 35, h2, hh, 116). All research workers have not agreed in the past on the classifications of sampling methods that can be used within the various designs. Cassady(8) in 19115 pointed out that some researchers placed sampling methods under three general headings, (a) haphazard, which includes Opportunistic ani pseudo-random, (b) rarriom, which includespure random and systematic, and (c) stratified, which includes quota and area. Cassady stressed that the haphazard method has no statistical basis and should not be used. He said, however, that the sampling technique should depend to some extent on circumstances. This would allow for some f lexibility. Mcast researchers agree with Brown's(5), l9h7, classification of all sampling methods as either randomized or stratified. This is characteristic of present practice. Actually many methods used today are a canbination of these two classifications in varying degrees. This is in agreement with Politz(30), 19146, who also pointed out that any time an area is selected or segmentation is carried out, to that extent stratification is done. Madow(26), l9h6, compared random, 8‘t‘oratified random and systematic methods of samplirg and found each 8“(massive method more efficient statistically than the preceding method. The systenatic method is not as stable in efficiency as either or the other two methods. Showel(32), 1951, supported the use of Stratification for the purpose of reducing the size of samples needed. Randanness may be accomplished by means of using an uncontrolled array 9 of the. population from which systematic samples are drawn, or on the other extreme by using a rigidly controlled youp from which random samples are drawn by means of a chance drawing or use of a random number table. Systematic sample numbers usially are determined by an initial raniom drawing(10, 16, 21, 2h, 25, 35, h2, lib, 1.16). Hansen and Hurwitz(20) in l9h9, in discussing probability sampling, gave an example which combined stratification and randomization in sampling. Called stratified random sampling, this type is in common use for obtaining information fran a certain percentage of blocks in a city. A random number is used to determine the first numbered block to be designated with the subsequent blocks selected at systematic intervals. Hauser and Hansen(23), 191414, supported this type of sampling as the successor to ”chunk" sampling a 13 "Literary Digest.” Cochran, Mosteller and Tukey(ll), 195b, were extremely critical of samples which Were obtained "by grabbing a handful.” Vickeryflll) as early as 1939 Presented a method for drawing a random sample from a set of punched cardfle At present, probability samples are the recognized standard for mpling procedures in marketing research. Deming(l5) in 19147 CcIlltzienned judgment sampling as having undecided statistical reliability. Peterson and O'Dell(29), 1950, could see an end to Judgment sampling when samples became less costly. Stephan(37), 1936, earlier had set fOrth acme general rules in this regard in a conplete discussion. Batenu, 2, 3, b) in a series of articles in 1956, 1957 and 1958, gave some interesting details of minor modifications when he canpared 10 various techniques in regards to rardom sampling. All of the methods discussed yielded comparable results. They were: (a) The use of random mmbers in sampling by means of 10 per cent random samples taken from each tounsip in a county. (b) A comparison of random sampling from the entire county and stratified random sampling from each township. (c) A comparison of stratified random sampling and optimum stratified random sampling. ((1) A canparison of two-stage or sub—sampling to the above methods of sampling. Even with the best designs ard recognized sampling methods, there are still limitations on obtaining valid results by sampling. Cassady(8), 191:5, enumerated several, three of which apply here. They are (a) lack of rrecision due to random errors, (b) lack of representativeness, and (c) lack of arithnetical accuracy. Research workers and statisticians are in accord that full precautions must be taken to minimize invalid results from these causes(lO, 16, 21, 2h, 25, 35, 36, ’42, M, 136). Validation may be achieved by many methods. Analysis of variance is a t001 that has been used by biological scientists since Fisher(l7) discovered the distribution of the ratio of two estimates of variance. This was later designated as the variance ratio by Fisher and Yates(18). S'l'ledecor(36) called this variance ratio "F" in Fisher's honor. The d~esignation has been accepted in most statistical work. A canprehensive discussion of the use of analysis of variance in emneration sampling Was given by Cochran(9) in 1939. Analysis of variance is usually anployed by marketing researchers in validating the rotational, latin- 11 square and factorial design experiments discussed by Brunk(7). Rarxiamized plot, randomized block, split plot, paired plot and various other designs of a similar nature are usually analyzed by analysis of varimeuo. 16. 21. 2h. 25. 35. 36. 1:2, M, 146). Fiske and Dunlap(19) , 19b5, presented a g‘aphical test for the significance of differemes between frequencies from different samples. This test is of limited use. Miner(27) in 1956, was severely critical of the cumulative frequency method of testing stability of sample results for validation. He said that the cumulative frequency method cannot be a test of stability of sample results because operation of the method itself insures stability within the sample. He stressed tint the method is a tool of rather hazardous propensities in the herds of some researchers. Charitably it can only be regarded as furnishing window dressing for a sample survey. In most eXperiments the population is unknown. For this reason the samples which are taken are analyzed and used for the purpose of estimating the population. Validation methods that are to be used with a known population-sample situation are lacking in the literature. The pepulation in the experiment reported here, was known and the sampling methods were validated directly against it percentagswise and by analysis of variance. This unique situation made these two tools the only necessary mathematical ones to use. Even with the population available as an aid to validation, variance analysis only provides unbiased estimates within an eXperiment and generalities cannot be made beyond the limitations of the conditions of the outperimentfl, 10, 16, 12 17’ 21, 2h, 25, 35, 36’ hzs hh! h6)0 Representativeness is always one of the goals of a sampling method(10, 16, 21, 2h, 25, 35, 36, 1:2, hh, 146). Most forms of analysis depend upon this factor for confidence in ary attempt at validation. Plainlv, aw sample that is not representative of the population cannot be an estimate of that population. Mary means for arriving at representativeness are used. Stratification to the point of homogeneous units can be employed provided the definition of homogeneous is not drawn too fine. Cassady(8), 191:5, was greatly impressed by the need for representativeness, and stressed the lack of it as one of the limitations on obtaining valid results. He pointed out that sample sizes could be greatly reduced where representativeness is achieved. Craig(l3), 1939, reported on the mathematics of the representative method of sampling. Smith, gt _a_l(3h), 191:6, stressed that the method by which rep'esentativeness of a population may be obtained by sampling, differs with the characteristics of the population. They concluded that randomness within a good design is best but that in some cases the design must be so precise as to preclude all randomness. Hetergeneous pOpulations may be stratified into a few homogeneous categories to assure representativeness and allow the use of smaller total samples. Again, seldom is a population available against which samples and their analyses may be checked and by this checking determine the accuracy of representativeness. The possibility of direct comparison between 13 population and samples is seldom a part of any experiment and therefore reliance on recognized methods for reducing error is the umal course (10, 16, 21, 2b, 25, 35, 36, m, u, 146). Cassady(8), 1916, Smith, at £014), l9h6, ani Colley(12), 19116, among others have drawn attention to the fact that the percentage of sample error varies inversely with the square root of the number of cases in a probability sample. To increase accuracy from four per cent error to two per cent error, or by one-half, would require four times as many cases in a sample. The frequencies needed in a sample to provide accuracy, validation and representativeness has long been recognized in marketing research and apply where the frequency distribution is nomal(10, 16, 21, 2h, 25, 35, 112, Mg, 16). Vernon(h0), 1937, suggested a table which is useful only when the frequency of samples is over 30 and where the data are not skewed nor erratic. The accuracy depends much on the size of the units nudiGde Hal"1'13, Horvitz and Mood(22), 191:8, discussed determination of sample 3186 in an experiment design when (a) the population is nonmal, ani (b) an estimate of 212 of the variance is available. SmithOB), 1939, proposed the formula Ills-2:8.)— where p is the pr"Portion of desired answers, q is the proportion of all other answers, 9 13 the total percentage of error to be allowed in the proportion of deSix-ed answers arr! t is the standard deviate multiplier for any level °f Probability. His sampling tables were used to determine (a) accuracy 0f results, (b) the sample size required for a certain accuracy and ll; given response, (c) the most economical sample size, (d) whether there 13 a real difference among several unlimited consumer choices, (e) the val :ldity of differences among choices when the selection is limited, arxl (f) the secular differences in consumer preferences for temporal market studies. This and otter similar formulas may be widely fourd (10, 16, 21, 2h, 25, 35, 36, b2, lib, ho). Crossley(lh), 19141, proposed that sampling adequacy is affected by two types of breakdowns, (a) the number of ways that we classify and (b) the number of different answers. He said that the smallest number as an answer to amr question in its snallest breakdown, assuming a normal distribution of frequencies, should never be less than 25 or l/lO of one per cent of all there is in a group that is being studied. When “1131b ers are large and there are few variable, it is sometimes possible to go as low as l/lOO of one per cent. Usually the most reliable samples, if carefully distributed, appear to be obtained with 1/10 to 3/10 of one per cent, except for small groups where the rule of 25 should be used. Smith, gt_ a_1_(3h), 191.6, drew attention to the complexity that often ac"QOmpanies the determination of sample sizes. In general, the more cqnplex the basic design of the eXperiment, the larger will be the 8%]:19 size needed. Using stabilization of returns as an indication of the: proper sample size to employ may be misleading. It can as often imitate a lack of representativeness of a sample. The more homogeneous the population, the smaller will be the size of sample needed(10, 16, 21. 2h, 25, 35, M, an, be). The table on sample sizes by Brown(6) has been in use since 1935. 15 (301133412), 1916, devised a pocket calculator for determining sample sizes. He also stressed that the number of samples (total yes and no arzswers) in a breakdown should be the same as though the breakdown was a canplete survey in itself. METHODS AND MATERIAIS This sampling method validation experiment was set up in a factorial design. It contained 12 selected Michigan flower shops which were equally divided between two areas. Iniivimlal sales were collected fran these shops for a period of seven months. Three sampling methods were imposed on the iniividual salesdata. Three replicates were obtained 01' taro of the sampling methods and two replicates of the third which was the one to be validated. The 12 shops were the some ones which were cooperating in the parent Study concerning the effects of alternative managerial decisions ard methods on retail florists’ business. Six of these sheps were located in Jackson and six in four other communities, Flint, Durand, Grand Led ge and (band Rapids. This provided two areas for canparison. The f 11“st area will be refered to as "In-Jackson" and the other as "Out-cf- J‘Rkaon" throughout the paper. Both high and low volume shops were f<>"~1.nd in both areas ard can be identified in Tables I and II. R ecording for the overall Irogram started with orders that were filled 07“ February 1, 1957 and continued through January Bl, 1958. In order ‘30 evaluate the effect of consumer demaui on supply channels ard the I‘e‘bailer, the date of filling the order was used. The data employed in this sampling tecmique study, were from orders filled on July 1, 1957 16 tnrOugh January 31, 1958, a seven month period. Three types of mrk sense International Business Macrame cards3 had been devised for recon‘ling the data for the overall program and were also used for this segment. Each of the completed 134! cards represented a separate commodity sale. In some cases it took several cards to record the different commodities found on one sales slip. For example, several corsages or boutomrieres might have been recorded/on the same Bales slip, or several arrangements for a funeral, or green plants with floweering plants, or bedding plants with vegetable plants. Most of the recording was done in the shops by the investigators. All 01' the information used came from sales slips and register tapes as interpreted by the investigators and shop Operators. The shop operators furmislued'access to the records and an occasional interpretation of the haItlwriting on the sales slips or symbols used to key the cash regster tApes. Identification of some categories was nearly perfect; notably “ales for mnerals and sales of arrangements. The sales slips were filed by various means in the cooperating shops. In some cases each month's slips were kept in alphabetical order with cI’Ba'ge, cash and wire orders kept separated. In other cases the slips were filed under the date on which the orders was filled, or in exact lNumerical order of the receipt of each order, or in no set pattern. The sales recorded on the register tapes were, of course, in the order in which they were registered. 3: Samples of these cards are available on request. 17 The mm‘k sense cards were processed by machine punching, thus a key Wm}! opa‘ator was eliminated. The codes for the shops were conposed of thee county nunber followed by the shop mmber. They were punched into the mark sense cards from master cards during the initial processing. The yearly code was added fron the same master cards. Following verification, the cards were sorted first chronologically starting with February 1, 1957 and continuing on to the end. Then each month was sorted into shop order starting with the "Out-of—Jackson" shops arrl ending with the "In-Jackson" shops. The details of the shop order arrangement are found in Table I. The slope are kept in the same order in all tables where individual shops appear. Only those cards representing individual sales filled on July 1, 1957 through Jamary 31, 1958 were used to continue with the analysis for statistical validation 01' a. sampling method. Total frequencies and monetary values of the total sales and of several c‘l‘t’oergories for each shop per month were obtained on a 1407 IBM Accounting (Tabulating) machine. These with shop, month and seven-month (the total Period) totals are recorded in Table I for "all retail sales" ard in Table II for "arrangenent sales," one of the merchardise categories. TO‘bals. for the full year and the rest of the 58 categories, with "interactions," are programmed on the Michigan State Digital Computer, MISPIC, for a later report. Part of the latter totals were used in the I”eport by New, Tolle and Parvin( 28) in 1959. Reconding of the two 10 per cent frequency samples directly from the Beles slips ani register tapes began with orders filled on July 1, 1957. 18 It was accomplished by alternately marking the X and I (ll am 12) positions in mark sense column 26 of every fifth card. This represented every fifth commodity purchased. The first card to be marked for each shop was determined by a rardom drawing. This method resulted in two 10 per cent frequency samples, each of which was five cards from the other. This method will be referred to throughout the paper as the "I n—Shop' systematic sampling method. This term is used to differentiate between this method and the systematic and stratified random samples Obtained on the IE! tabulator as described below. The stratified random 10 per cent frequency samples were selected on a 1to? IBM machine. A control board for this machine and a coupled sumnary Punch, was wiredh by the research division of the tabulating department. This. board controlled the selection of 10 specified cards from every 100 cards (a strata) and the reproduction of thm on the summary punch 33 they passed through the tabulator. The specified cards within the 100 card strata were designated by a master card pinched with 10 random m~"1bers' that ranged between 1 and 100. These numbers were selected from SheClecor's(36) randan mmber table. Three such cards were used to 881act three different stratified random samples (replicates) from the 5°eS82 cards which represented the retail sales from July 1, 1957 through January 31, 1958. Machine cycle restrictions required that amr 8Q’I‘ies of rartiom numbers selected must have intervals ‘of three or greater. Numbers closer than three interfere with the cycle of °Deration of the machine. This causes. selection of every card through the tabulator after the cycle is broken. It was assumed after E. The wiring diagram is available from the tabulating department. 19 appropriate consultations that so long as a recognized random mnber table was used for selecting mmbers, the results should be unbiased. Three systematic sample master cards were also prepared for use with the machine. They started with three, six ani nine, respectively, and proceeded at intervals of 10 cards through each 100 cards in order. Thus 3, 13, 23 on up to an including 93 were selected for the first card. The master cards had to be adjusted to the machine reading cycle ani this actually 1, 11, 21 on up to and including 91 were punched on the first systenatic sample card. All cards were kept in the same place in the total deck throughout the selection of the three systematic and three stratified rardcm samples. The categories of "all retail sales" an! "arrangement sales" were Balected for detailed analyses from the summaries (totals) produced on the tabulator. These were selected because they were the only ca~‘l‘oegories that did not have a zero value for sane month for sane shop a"KJng the three types of 10 per cent frequency samples. Frequencies of °°<>urrence of "all retail sales," ranged from 3&1 down to 2 per shop per “‘On‘th among the samples. Frequencies of occurrence of "arrangement 8alee" ranged from 76 down to 1 per shop per month among the san ples. This was considered to be an adequate range of frequency to provide I‘81aibility tests whichawould reach any limits involved. The last seven months of the overall program data recorded on the Previously described IE! cards were selected for analysis because Specific identification of the two 10 per cent "In-Shop" systematic 5. With Dr. W. D. Baton, Experiment Station Statistician. 20 frequency samples was begun with orders filled on July 1, 1957. Armlysis of variance was the analysis method used throughout this validation experiment, except for the final comparisons in Tables LVII arxi LVIII, where percentage relationship was used. Amlyses of variances were first scheduled within both of the three- replicate sampling methods in both selected sales categories to obtain F values for variances among shops, among months and between the "In—Jackson" arxi "Out-of-Jackson" shops in Tables III through XIV. Analyses of variances were then scheduled with the two-replicate "In—Shop" systematic sampling method ani the first two replicates of the stratified random and systematic sanpling methods in Tables XV thr Ough XXXVI. This provided equal replicate mmbers. These analyses were used to detemine F values for variances among sampling methods in add ition to F values for variance among shops, among months and between aPeels. The first two replicates were used under the theory that if only “*0 had been selected, these two would have been the ones. The data then were arranged and examined for sampling method differences at frequency levels of 10, 20, 30, to and so frequencies in Tables XXXVII through XLVI. The first five cases of each frequency level from e"=l-ch sampling method regardless of sales category were subjected to malyses of variances for this determination. The correSponding DOpulation values were also subjected to analyses of variances and then Compared to these 10 per cent frequency samples after dividing the Population values by 10. Two frequencies from other than the same shop (viz. not two from 21 Jackson shop number one for August) were added together when there were not enough cases of frequency level numbers to couplets the needs for a certain level within a sampling method. For example, the 30 frequency level was seriously lacking in all three sampling methods. To make 30 frequencies, 15 and 15, or 11; and 16, or 8 and 22 or other combinations of two frequencies were added together and the combined monetary values used for the analyses. Ten and 20 were not added to make 30 because they were already incorporated into the analyses of those levels . Following completion of the analyses designed to compare the three sampling methods, the frequency level data from the "In-Shop" alt's'bematic sampling method were further analyzed to show variances within each frequency level. This sampling method was selected for 8“8137813 of the individual sales values because of the results of Previous analyses and other desirable characteristics. This sampling method was the one previously described as a systematic marking of the cards in the flower mops directly from sales slips and register tapes. Th9 Values from each of the individual 13! cards in the previously E”lacked five lots (cases) of the five frequency levels of the "In-Shep” systematic samples were then subjected to analyses of variances. These analIVses were designed to furnish evidence of the frequency level at Which reliability begins, the main objective of this eXperiment. Again: cmparisms were made with the corresponding population value for each I“ (not individual) for verification. These were set up in Tables XLVII through LVI. 22 Finally the frequencies and monetary values of both the X and Y "In—Shop" systenatic frequency samples were multiplied by 10 to provide an estimate of the population from each replicate, shop average, month average, area average and total average. This estimate was then divided by the frequencies and monetary values of the real population of each replicate, shop average, month average, area average, and total average of both tin "all retail sales" and "arrangement sales" categories. This manipulation was for the purpose of establishing the Percentage relationship of each of the above to the correspomling real frequencies and monetary values. They are presented in Tables LVII and LVI II. REILTS Th. frequency (umber) of "all retail sales" for all of the 12 selected Mic higan retail flower shops for the seven-month period under study was 50.5823 the value was $307,910.76. These are shown in Table I. The freqxiency of "arrangement sales" was 20,887 ani the value was $115,813.71 as shown in Table II. These two tables represent the “Ole population or parameter against which the sampling methods, I‘z'i‘equenc'y of occurrence and monetary values were measured for validation. There were 15,179 IBI cards selected for the three stratified random 8atriples (replicates) fer an average of 5,060. There were 15,171 IE! cal‘ds selected for the three systematic samples for an average of 5.9057 cards per sample. Both of these averages were very close to 10 Per cent of the frequencies of the "all retail sales" population. The total value of the stratified randan samples was $93,159.57 for 23 an average of $31,053.19. The total value for the systematic samples was $92,921.00 and the average was 330,973.67. Both of these average values were slightly greater than 10 per cent of the "all retail sales” pOpulation value- Similar accuracy was obtained with the two samples (replicates) per sampling method. Frequency of occurrence for series X of the "In-Shep" systenatic method was 98.97 per cent of the "all retail sales" population frequency for the "Out-of-Jaclaon" shops and 99.15 per cent i‘w the "In-Jackson” shops. The monetary values were 101.09 per cent and 97.31 per cent respectively. Frequency for all shops was 99.07 per cent and monetary value was 99.39 per center the "all retail sales"| P0pulation. The I series mowed a similar behavior. The discrepancy in fli‘equency percentage in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling method was 8lightly larger than that for the other two methods. Part of this wall discrepancy was due to the fact that each shop's total frequencies were not an exact multiple of 10. The other tart was due to losing the 1Ilentity of a few of the cards during the processing procedure. These "lost” cards were a part of the total deck fron which the "machine" aaluples were drawn. Analyses of variances of Tables III through XIV, which are based on three smuples from each of the IE! machine selected stratified random and systenatic salupling methods, show that most of the variance in the data is among the shops. This is shown by the extremely high 1“ values for shops in both the "all retail sales” and "arrangment sales" categories. There also was a large variance among months in the ”all retail sales" category. There were only slight fluctuations among 21; months in "arrangenent sales." The F values for months were consistently lower than for shops in both categories ani lower in the case of "arrangement sales" than in the case of "all retail sales." When tin two areas, "(hat-of-Jackson” ard "In-Jackson," were compared, the two areas showed a statistical difference tint was highly significant in most cases. Similar results were obtained when all three smpling methods were analyzed using two samples per method. This was true except for sane flows-significant F values (a) in the area of comparison analysis of stratified random samples for "arrangement sales," and (b) in the ”Out-of—Jackson" "In-Shop" systematic samples fa- "arranganent sales" as recorded in Tables XV through XXIII. The stapling method analyses in Table XXXIII through XXXVI show no statistically significant differences among sampling methods for elither areas, sales categories, frequencies or monetary values. The analyses of the 10, 20, 30, 140 and 50 frequency levels rep‘esented in Tables XXIVII through 11.? show no statistically significant differences (a) among the various sanpling methods, nor (b) between 8maples and the whole population which each represented, for the first fOur frequency levels tested. At the 50 frequency leyel highly Significant sample differences were obtained. This difference corresponded to a similar highly significant population difference. This can be expected when the ample is a good estimate of the population. Great differences were not eXpected among the various levels with this analysis because five sanples of 10 frequencies each 25 were addative. They in effect became 50 frequencies. Only by usirc individual values of each sale or order within these five samples could the variances within each frequency level be detemined. These two series of analyses confirmed the proposition that any one of the three sampling methods was valid fcr obtaining retail sales data from flower shops. Using this as a basis, the balance of the analyses were made with the "In-Shop" systenatic sampling method. It was also the method of main interest for statistical validation. The analyses of the individual order values from each of the frequency level selections for this sapling method, represented in Tables XLVII through LVI, show that there was more variation within the five selected lots for each fiequency level than among them, until [.0 freqmncies of occurrence was reached. Results were highly significant for both the 1.0 and 50 frequency levels, indicating tint an actual difference at these levels could'be determined. When each lot in each level was conpared to its corresponding population value, a similar result was obtained. There were no significant differences at any level between sample and population. However, significance was obtained among tin lots at the to frequency level and high significance among the lots at the 50 frequency level. This is the second indication that actual differences can be detennined at these levels. At the ho frequency level the five lots selected averaged at 98.37 per cent of the monetary value of the population. At the 50 frequency level the average was 97.83 per cent of the whole population. 26 The percentage relationship of each ample to the population or real values is shown in Tables LVII and LVIII for the "In-Shop" systmtic samples. The sample frequencies and values were multiplied by 10 to obtain an estimate of the population represented by them. These estimates were then divided by He population frequencies ani values to arrive at the percentage figures presented. These figures show an interesting relationship of frequency and values. By refering back to Tables KI and mm for ”all retail sales” and Tables XXX and XXXI for ”mangenent sales," the low volume shops and months can be seen to often correspond with erratic frequency and value percentages. DISCUSSION It seems reasonable to state, from the 10 per cent frequency samplirg data presented, that the "In-Shap" systematic sampling method used here is as accurate as either machine selected stratified random or systematic frequency sanpling methods. 0n the same basis, it can be com lnded that each component part of each desired transaction, occasion and memtmndise category of this particular census-type data must .have at least to frequencies of occurrence to give statistically highly significant results. In case of doubt as to the similarity of character of data from a proposed area, it would appear desirable to use 50 frequencies of occurreme. This is partially supported by the appearance of statistical significance at the ho frequency level sample-population comparison in Table LIV while high significance appears in Table LVI for the 50 frequency level. It seems reasonable to seem, from the experience of the writer, that retail flower sales data in another area often might assume a pattern 27 of distribution of individual order values that is similar to the pattern from these 12 selected Michigan shops. If this is so, the above frequency assimption could then be useful in obtaining 10 per cent frequency samples elsewhere if precaution was used to gather a total of about 5,000 frequency samples per year per area or unit under study. This mmber wculd need to be doubled to p‘ovide adequate samples for a test and control area as part of a verification process for statistical confidence. not shops involved in a test should show a range in volume that is about the same as the 12 selected Michign shops to furtl'er fulfill the requirements. Because of the ever present unknown factors in the distribution pattern of frequencies and monetary values, it is probably safer to use the figure of 50 frequencies for these shape and also for other shops and areas. It was brought to the writer's attention6 that skewness of distribution of this data most likely is the greatest reason for the discrepancy between this higher figure of 140 to 50 minimum frequencies and that of 30 proposed by VernonUlO) and 25 proposed by CrossleyCl-h). Both Vernon and Crossley assumed a normal distribution. To investigate this, Tables LIII and LV were examined. Table LIII shows individual orders varying from 10 cents to $30.00 with an average of 37.21. Table LV shows a Variation of from 81.35 to $314.10 with an average of 88.01. Neither of these averages is close to the median which is a requirement of normal distribution. This divergence of median and mean strongly suggests skewness. In addition, while recording the papulation data, several sales of less 3. Private conversation with Dr. Harold Ecker, Short Course Department. 28 than 10 cents were noted. On the other hand, another sale of around 31,000 was recorded. There were several in the $50.00 to $75.00 range, but the average of the seven-month pepulation data presented in Table I was .86.09. This is certainly not the median between the low and high sales values for this period. From this it can easily be understood why distribution skewness is suggested as the probable reason for the higher (LO, 1h) frequency level needed in this data for confidence at the 99 per cent level. In some cases this might approach a Poisson distribution. This could be the case with orders sent by wire. While these data do not positively show it, it can be postulated that data on florist merchandise sales that show frequencies of ho or 50 or more occurrences in the desired categories should produce satisfactory answers at am sampling percentage which can produce these levels, when about 5,000 samples per area or unit per year are taken. In these data samples of to frequencies showed less than four per cent of error and samples of 50 frequencies showed only slightly over two per cent of error at the one per cent level. Therefore, useful conclusions at the one per cent level probably can be obtained at no greater error fran any category in which ho or 50 or more frequencies occur if the sample size is a reasonable pa‘centage of the population. It can be postulated further that categories that do not have sufficient frequencies of' occurrence can be combined until ho or SO frequemies are reached. Thus two or more categories could be combined to obtain a better picture than if they were not combined. For imtance in the related population data from which the data for this study were taken, casket pieces, companion pieces, sprays and set designs, all similar 29 funeral "pieces," were placed in four separate "commodity” classes. A 10 per cent frequency sample of any one by itself would not meet the requirements of confidence on a 310p per month or area per mmth basis. When trey are combined into me category and used on an area basis per month, it is possible that a 10 per cent frequency sanple may be feasible. It is reasonable to believe that a 10 per cent frequency sample or any other percentage sample would not be reliable in finding when the first Christmas or Easter order was taken and/or filled in a certain year. This is due to the low frequencies early in the season. On the other hand, it is feasible to estimate the total amber and value of such orders for one season with a 10 per cent frequency sampling method provided a minimum of ho to 50 frequencies of occurrence are obtained. If for some reason it is not feasible to combine classifications because the information desired concerns one classification alone, then it my becone necessary to record the population of that particular category while taking the balance of the records on a sample basis. For instance, information on the effect of an allied (cooperative) florists advertising effcrt concentrated on a desirable year-around- appeal occasion such as birthdays, would be useful in masuring the promotional effect of such an effort. Unfortunately, there are not enough birtnlay sales, as indicated by the records obtained from the 12 cooperating shops, to obtain statistical significance in a 10 per cent frequency sample. Using the areas under study as an example, total sales for birthdays 30 recorded in June and July "In—Jackson" only totaled 36 and 33, respectively, and M for July "Out-of-Jackson.” On sich a volune it is impossible to obtain a 10 per cent sample with a minimum of to to 50 frequencies per area for all months throughout the year. If a test of allied advertising effort became possible and birthdays were selected as the occasion because of their universal appeal and even distribution, it would be necessary to record tie ”birthiay sales" population. This would be required, although a 10 per cent frequency sample would be feasible for the balance of the data. If the total frequencies in the 10 per cent sample was increased to about 100,0(X) per year divided between the test ard control areas, accuracy would ' return, but so would massive data and expense. It would seen simpler to confine the 10 per cent frequency sample to ”all retail sales" with a goal of recording 10,000 orders or items per year between the test and control areas. All of the "birthday sales" Would need to be recorded additiomlly and kept separate from the 10 per cent sanple. Fran the records of the 12 cooperating shops, this would mean a duplication of the nearly 200 "birthiay sales” recordings in the 10 per cent samples. It would also mean making out a separate complete set of records for the nearly 2000 "birtl'day sales" for the year. t It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude tret this information about the reliability of various frequency levels in this type of data is of value to the marketirg investigator. Such information has been lackirg to this time in the field of floriculture mrketing. This is especially 31 valuable to the marketing investigator who is confronted with limited funds, yet wishes to draw his information from a broad base.. It is true tint this frequency level suggestion of to to 50 frequencies may not be accurate for other floriculture marketing investigations, where the frequemy distribution pattern differs geatly, but it provides a point from which to start. This point was not previously known. The method of analysis used in Tables XLVII, XLIX, LI, LIII am LV provides a relatively easy means of checking on tie reliability of similar data to determine the data's own unique frequency level where reliability is achieved. larger retail florists operating with a single unit or multiple units, am! with a yearly volume of about 50,000 orders, could use every tenth order for a month, season or the entire year, as a sample. This could give a close approximation of the character of that part of their business which concerns merchandise sales, provided that they did not detail the data into categories which would rave less than ho to 50 frequencies. For instance, the proportion of sales of arrangements to total sales, a comparison of monthly sales of arrangements, the occasions for which arrangements are sold and/or the transactions involved in the sale of arrangements or other merchandise could be determined. Those florists with a greater total frequency could reduce tl'eir frequency sample percentage to provide the same restrictions or take data on a 10 per cent basis and increase the details. Available punched card equipment would be desirable. Cooperative florist groups or those subscribing to a service where 3.2 punched card equipnent is available could find information about their collective market. Wire order services rave such equipment and could obtain information at a reduced cost by means of 10 per cent systematic frequency samples properly stratified into areas of the country. It might be more feasible for a wire order service organization to use populations of 50,000 frequencies of occurrence of all "wire sales" per year as units for study for the detail desired rather than to use geographical units. Fewer population frequencies per year might be used if classificatims could be grouped for less detail. This is possible with a 10 per cent frequency sanple as long as each desired category has at least ho to 50 frequencies of occurrems. Wire services sampling wire orders could conceivably benefit from lower frequency levels. This would be under the assumptions that with minimum order limits, and elimination of certain types of very large orders on the other extreme, such data will have a less. skewed distribution than all florists' sales would have. Minimum order limits eliminate nearly all orders of a value of less than $5.00. Wire services could determine their own best frequency levels by using the method of analysis given in Tables XLVII, XLIX, LI, 1.111 and LV. Related industries that must consider the seasonal variation of florists sales in scheduling the fabrication of tleir products for florist use, could benefit from data gathered by systematic frequency samples to aid in projecting their schedules. Included in this group are the producers of advertising "stuffers" to be inclosed with monthly statements, of supplies, and of holiday items. 33A As a further argument in support of setting such limits as lave been set throughout this discussion, a study of the results obtained by the ”In-Shop" sampling method expressed as percentages of the population are presented in Tables LVII and LVIII. The data in these tables shcm increasing accuracy as one moves progressively from the smaller volume shops to the higher volume shops. Tables I and II will help to identify the various shops according to volume. Increased accuracy or fit is also shown as one progresses on to the area-monthly averages, total sample averages, and total shop averages and finally to the grand *3 otal averages fourfi at the bottom right corner of each table. There is a. fairly great increase in accuracy as one progresses upward from the lower frequency levels. This accuracy increases at a decreasing rate as the frequencies become higher. These tables also illustrate the erratic nature of systematic sampling efficiency which was pointed out by At the sane time one must not loose sight of the fact that accuracy of results expressed as percentages is a mathematical play on increasing sample nmnbers in relation to the population and does not guarantee representativeness. It can be easily shown that in calculating percentages, a difference of one means 50 per cent when the total is two, but a difference of only 0.05 per cent when the total is 2000. Economy in eXperiments usually dictates a compromise at some point in between. 338 SUMMARY 1. High statistical significance can be obtained with retail flower shop ales data gathered by a systematic sampling method whereby every tenth order or item sold is recorded, provided: (a) At least ’40 to 50 frequencies of occurrence are recorded in each category, such as the frequency of sales for birtl'days for any month for a shop or other unit of observation. (b) About 5,000 total orders or items are recorded per area or unit under observation per year. Greater detail can be obtained with each segnentation of tin data by increasing the sample numbers. (c) The data from the flower shops being investigated show a similar skewness of distribution of monetary values. 2. Other‘intervals of sampling retail flower shop sales probably can be used provided these same precautions are met. 3. There were no differences among the three sampling methods used. ’40 Differences among shops were greater than differences among months 01‘ between areas. 5- "Arrangement sales" showed only slight monthly fluctuations. 60 "All retail sales" showed great monthly fluctuations. 7' Percentage fluctuations from the population by the "In-Shop” systematic samples in general follow the pattern of low frequency- hiElmer fluctuations, high frequency-loner fluctuations. 330 8. Organizations with punched card equipment can avail transelves of such sampling techniques provided they observe the preper precautions. 9. Frequency level requirements for a floral organization's "unique" data may be easily determined by analysis of variance if the individual sales values at the 10, 20, 30, 140 and SO frequency levels are analyzed. l. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 33D LITERATURE CITED Eaten, W. D. The use of random mmbers in sampling. Mich. Agr. EXPte Sta. Quar. Bul. 38:398-h00. Feb. 1956. Random sampling versus stratified random sampling applied to estimating the average number of acres per farm in Barry county, Michigan. Mich. Agr. EXpt. Sta. mar. 311. ho: 250-2550 NOVe 19570 fl Optimum stratified random sampling applied to acres per farm for Barry county, Michigan. Mich. Agr. EXpt. Sta. Quar. Bul. ho:539-5h2. Feb. 1958. Estimating the average number of acres per farm in Barry county, Michigan by two-stage sampling. Mich. Agr. Exprt. Sta. mar. Bul. 10:852-856. May 1958. Brown, 0. H. A comparison of sampling methods. Jour. Mktg. ll:h:331—337. Apr. 1914?. Brown, T. H. The use of statistical techniques in certain problems of marketing research- Harvard U- Grad. Sch. Bis. Adm., Buss ROS. StUdiea, 1935. Brunk, M. E. Use of- experimental-design- in marketing research. dour. Farm Econ. 10:5:1237-32146. Dec. 1955-. Cassady, Ralph, Jr. Statistical sampling techniques and marketing-research. Jour. Mktg. 9:11:317-3141. Apr. 19145. . 9-. 10. 1 1.. 15. 16. 18, 333 Cochran, "vi. G. The use of analysis of variance in enumeration by sampling. Jour. Amer. Stat. Assn. 334:1l92. 193.9. _. fl Sampling Techniques. Wiley, New York. 1953- WA - , F. Masteller and J. u. Tukey. Principles of sampling. Jour. Amer. Stat. Assn. 1:9 :lB-BS. March 19514. Colley, R. H. ' How to determine the size of a survey sample. Printer’s Ink. 216:25—27. 'Sept. 6, 19116. Craig, A. T. On the. mathematics of the representative method. of sampling; Ann. hath. Stat. 10:26. 1959. Crossley, A. .156. Theory and application of representative sampling as applied to marketing. dour. Ifxt. 5zhzh51—hél. AFT. 19h}. Deming, We Es Jour. Mktg. 128231h5-157e OCte l9h7e Some criteria for judging the quality of surveys. F erber, R. Statistical Technique in Marketing Research. I McGraw-Hill, New York. 191.19. Fisher, R. A. Statistical Methods for Research workers. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh. 1925-1914)“ A _ , and F. Yates. Statistical Tables. Oliver an! Boyd, Edinburgh. 1938-19113 . 190 20. 21. 22. 2h- 25. 26, 27. 33F Fiske, D. W. and J. W. Dunlap. A graphical test for the significance of differences between frequencies from different samples. Psychometrika. 10:225-229. Sept. 191:5. Hansen, M. H. ard W. H. Hurwits. Dependable samples from sample surveys. Jour. Mktg. lh:3:363-372. Oct. 19119. __ _. i m and C. W. Madow. Sample Survey Hethods and Theory. Wiley, New York. 1953. Harris, Mo, De Ge “amt: at“ A. Me Mmde 0n the detemimtmn of sample sizes in designing experiments. Jour. Amer. Stat. Assn. h3z391-h02. Sept. 19118. Hauser, P. M. and M. H. Hansen. 0n sanpling in market surveys. Jour. Iktg. 9:26-31. July 191.24. Hyman, H. H. Survey Design ard Analysis. Free Press, Glencoe, Ill. 1955 luck, D. J. an! H. 0. Wales. Marketing Research. Prentice-Hall, ”8' York. 19520 Madow, L. H. Systematic sampling and its relation to other sample designs. Jour. Amer. Stat. Assn. 141:20h-217. June 191:6. Miner, R. B. A critique of the cumilative frequency method for testing adequacy of sample size. Jour. Mktg. 21:1:76-77. Jul. 1956. New, B. H., L. J. Tolle, Jr., am P. E. Parvin. Sales analysis of flowers purctased fro: selected Michigan retail florists. Paper given at Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. meetings, Penn State, 1959. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3h. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 335 Peterson, P. G. and I. F. O'Dell. Selected sampling methods in commercial research. Jour. Mktg. 15:182-189. Oct. 1950. Polits, A. Can an advatiser believe what mrveys tell him? Hinter's Ink. 215323-25. Apr. 5, 191:6. Rada, E. L. Mainland markets for Hawaiian flowers and foliage. Dept. of Agr. Econ. Us or Hawaii. Feb. 1952. Showel, 11. How mch stratification? Inter. Jour. Opin. Att. Res. ‘ 5:229-210. Sinner 1951. 331th, Es De Market sapling. Jour. Mktg. h313h5-Soe Jul. 1939. Smith, E. R. at 9.1: Design, size art! validation of samples for nrket research. Jour. Mktg. 10:3:221—23h. Jan. 191.6. Smith, J. 0. an! A. J. Duncan. Sampling Statistics and Applications. McGraw-Jiill, New York. 1916. Smdecor, G. W. Statistical Methods. Iowa State Col. Press. 1950. Stephen, F. F. Practical problems of sampling procedures. Amer. SW. ROV. 13113569-5800 Aug. 1936. Tolle, L. J., Jr., and E. R. New. Seasmal variation in sales of retail florists merchandise. Mich. Agr. EXpt. Sta. Quar. B11. 11231111-125. Aug. 19590 Trotter, s. 1:. Problems in marketing florist crops. A. E. 983. Dept. Ave 80011. COPMIJ. U. June 1955. ho. 1:1. ’41.. 1:5. 1:6. 1:7. ‘ 33H Vernon, R. Pradeterndning the necessary size of a sample in unrketing studies. Jour. Mktg. 23129-12. Jul. 1937. Vickery. C. W. 0: drawing a ranian sample from a set of punched cards. Jour. Royal Stat. Soc. 6:1:62-66. 1939. Villars, D. S. Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments for Development Research. Brown, Dubuque. 1951. von Oppmfeld, H. A study of retail florist business. A. E. 7614. Dept. Age Ecme Cornell Us Jan. 1951. Wales, He Ge am Re Farbere Marketing Research, 30].”th Literature. Brown, Dubuque. 1952. _ w= A Basic Bibliography on Harbting Research. Amer. Mktg. Assn. June 1956. Yates, F. Samling Methods for Censuses and Surveys. Hefner, New York. 19h9. Yocum, J. C. Materials for checkirg up on sales trends and other operating results of Ohio florists. Shall Bus. Hambook. No. 3.7.17. Bur. Bus. Res., Ohio State u. 191:9. SHOP AVERAGE 3 Freq Value '1‘ 23-1 1 622.3 32130.67 g 3 25-1 1 8143.1. 7890.53 J3 25-2 1 633.3 6016.51 g 3 29-3 1 237.9 1501.26 1; 11.1 {J 572.7 31.28.30 0 78-1 £ h76e6 21.87086 N AREA TOrAL AREA AVERAGE 5614.1: h0hh.19 : 38-1 11559.1 8232.10 J 38-2 #110116 5797.90 A 3 38-3 . , C H 1 166.3 75038 K o 38-h .. S p 138.9 559 °3 g 5 38-5 2 691.6 2821.15 38-6 : 21.2.1. 1565.70 AREA TOTAL AREA AVERAGE 61.0.0 3287.81 TOIAL ND ' ' AVERAGE 602.2 3666.00 31 TABLE I. Frequency and value of all retail sales from the 12 selected Michigan retail flower ehzgpa for the months :5 73211:; 195? thrjugh Jamiary 1958. M 0 N T H 3 JULY AUGJST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER 0130110353 JANUARY SHOP TOTAL SHOP AVERAGE O Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value . Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value g 23-1 : 378 2328.80 159 2571.53 125 2095.71 601 2711.88 610 3109.91 1210 5613.87 610 3922.93 1356 22681.69 622.3 3210.67 0 s 25.1 : 676 6870.97 771 6921.16 668 6152.32 817 8283.16 770 7660.85 1166 11829.69 736 7260.57 5901 55233.72 813.1 7890.53 F 6 25-2 2 152 1175.63 619 6211.52 198 1521.80 582 5811.60 672 6689.55 972 8752.18 608 5917.26 1133 12115.51 633.3 6016.51 2 g 25-3 : 175 1019.91 203 1392.73 179 1297.50 217 1619.61 258 1387.39 119 2576.12 181 1185.55 1665 10508.81 237.9 1501.26 Si 1.1-»1 : 373 2199.70 111 2967-110 166 2163.35 553 3185.50 519 3531.07 1095 5688.60 529 3359.18 1009 23998.10 572.7 3128.30 3 78-1 : 373 1902.38 191 2190.11 181 2568.39 579 2281.86 126 1717.69 587 2395.20 396 2229.08 3336 15315.01 176.6 2187.86 N ARggTAL 2127 18827.39 3020 22287.75 2717 19102.10 3352 21118.61 3315 21129.19 5809 36885.66 3063 23871.87 23703 169855.90 AREA AVERAGE 101.5 3137.90 503.3 3711.63 152.8 3233.68 558.7 1021.77 552.5 1071.58 968.2 6117.61 510.5 3979.15 561.1 1011.19 I 38-1 : 837 5132.36 1081 6718.50 1221 6687.69 1197 8159.53 1190 7552.20 3315 15601.79 1167 7772.37 10911 57627.11 1559.1 8232.19 N 38-2 : 693 1001.58 739 1601.89 821 1822.80 975 5190.12 1091 5736.17 1911 10172.02 1058 5760.70 7291 10585.28 1011.6 5797.90 i 3 38-3 : 67 667.68 82 390.37 88 769.07 199 717.26 186 538.62 375 1133.80 167 705.83 1161 5252.63 166.3 750.38 g 6 38—1 : 82 122.68 80 132.10 111 193.55 111 561.10 110 111.00 208 1139.31 231 121.55 972 3911.59 138.9 559.23 3 8 38-5 z 130 2171.91 128 '2038.16 528 2201.36 691 2715.57 685 2715.87 1328 1861.75 718 3001.37 1811 19718.02 691.6 2821.15 N 38-6 : 183_ 1356.85 151 1183.50 222 1378.57 260 2011.65 226 1152.10 126 2198.23 229 1378.70 1697 10959.90 212.1 1565.70 AfiggFAL 2292 13756.09 2561 15361.82 2997 16356.01 3769 19685.23 3791 18166.26 7563 35112.90 3903 19016.52 26879 138087.86 AREA . . , AVERAGE 382.0 2292.68 127.3 2560.80 199.5 2726.01 628.2 3280.87 631.8 3077.71 1260.5 5902.15 650.5 3171.12 610.0 3287.81 Efiififi_“ . TOTAL 1719 32583.18 5581 37652.57 5711 35758.11 7121 13833.87 7106 12895.75 13372 72298.56 6966 12921.39 50582 307913.76 ‘ A AvggAGE 393.3 2715.29 176.2 2979.85 593.1 3652.82 592.2 3571.65 1111.3 6021.88 580.5 3576.78 602.2 3666.00 165.3 3137.71 35 TABLE II. Frequency and value of arrangement sales from the 12 selected Michigan retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. M O N T H S JULY AUCDSI‘ SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBm 1320312322 JANUARY SHOP TOTA L SHOP AVERAGE 0 Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value g 23-1 162 1196.58 198 1151.13 115 813.19 117 1312.76 225 1817.06 179 1539.91 261 2291.77 1315 10125.70 187.9 1189.39 0 3 25—1 178 1519.2O 500 1293.87 133 1031.87 535 1969.31 181 1616.18 111 3633.16 150 1372.11 3291 30199.13 170.1 1357.02 J g 25-2 : 306 2511.75 369 3056.31 315 2555.11 339 2819.76 100 3101.36 322 2758.13 303 2728.18 2351 19866.63 336.3 2838.09 g 8 25-3 : 96 583.61 118 737.86 101 610.89 102 733.60 108 711.36 108 728.21 86 667.91 719 1803.50 102.7 686.21 g 11-1 : 215 1503.15 261 1893.60 216 1112.70 301 2020.11 272 1999.36 326 2359.33 297 2072.93 1891 13291.18 270.6 1898.71 3 AREZB-l : 157 1135.77 191 1295.61 179 1390.75 119 1115.79 110 981.25 91 591.00 191 1156.13 1101 8002.33 157.7 1113.19 TOTAL 1111 11513.06 1638 12731.81 1359 10877.51 1606 13001.33 1626 13562.57 1110 11613.07 1591 13589.09 10677 86888.17 AREA AVERAGE 235.7 1918.81 273.0 2121.97 226.5 1812.92 267.7 2166.89 271.0 2260.13 210.0 1935.51 265.7 2261.85 251.2 2068.77 i 38—1 : 165 3367.59 595 1292.97 537 3860.77 607 1190.17 592 1102.86 622 1120.17 639 1571.09 1057 29105.92 579.6 1157.99 J 38-2 : 100 2702.09 113 3007.57 392 2805.68 152 2999.20 111 2806.05 161 3191.86 152 3165.10 3017 20680.55 135.3 2951.36 A S 38-3 : 36 211.31 11 185.80 17 216.69 71 372.88 51 213.55 71 327.28 58 255.90 381 1816.11 51.1 259.19 Ea): 384’ g 51 ”9'65 5° 250“” M‘ 263500 13 225.50 10 225.95 37 191.23 39 206.25 301 1599.58 13.1 228.51 3 S 38-5 : 203 1320.67 166 1101.15 175 1063.95 227 1310.11 229 1383.78 295 1693.08 320 1865.07 1615 9768.11 230.7 1395.19 38-6 : 135 1036.50 91 618.50 132 930.57 129 981.25 119 910.35 88 687.20 112 787.00 806 5951.37 115.1 850.62 AfiggTAL 1290 8880.81 1386 9156.29 1327 9168.66 1532 10112.71 1175 9612.51 1580 10513.82 1620 10850.11 10210 68925.21 AREA AVERAGE 215.0 1180.11 231.0 1576.05 221.2 1528.11 255.3 1735.15 215.8 1607.09 263.3 1752.30 270.0 1808.10 213.1 1611.08 02:15 GagagTAL 2701 20393.87 3021 22188.10 2686 20016.20 3138 23111.01 3101 23205.11 3030 22126.89 3211 21139.50 20887 155813.71 , AVERAGE 225.3 1699.19 252.0 1819.01 223.8 1670.52 261.5 1951.17 258.1 1933.76 251.7 1813.91 267.8 2036.63 218.7 1851.93 TABLE III. 36 Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales in the six "Out-of-Jeckson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. FRWENCY OF ALL RETAIL SALES (NUMBER) _‘ 4 A n o N 'r H s _zSHOP JUL! AUG. 32m. 001. nov. DEC. JAN. 510.3101: 23.1 : 111.67 1114.33 111.00 66.00 60.00 125.33 60.00 62.62 3 25—1 3 611.67 711.33 65.00 80.67 70.00 1118.67 78.00 82.148 :25-2 : 1.5.00 611.67 53.00 56.67 65.33 911.67 65.33 63.38 P 25—3 2 16.00 28.33 19.00 20.67 211.00 16.33 18.60 211.05 S111.1 : 38.33 15.00 39.33 59.00 56.00 109.00 149.33 56.57 m078§1 : 37.00 38.33 _39.67 52.33 h3.oo# 55.00 1.0.67 1.6.57 #1311163 110.111. 50.17 1111.33 55.89 53.06 96.50 51.22 55.91; 1.31) MONI‘HS 5%- 2.39 1%- 3.111 LSD SHOPS 5%- 2.20 15.. 2.90 BLUE OF ALL RmuL SALES m DOLLARS __ M 0 u 'r H s 231102 _ JUL! AUG. SEPT. ocr. nov. DEC. JAN. :mmcm S 23-1 : 22b.79 211.32 216.17 316.57 3311.17 5711.07 365.06 321.59 a 25.1 3 61.0.12 725.71. 683.21. 895.32 655.15 1022.06 8118.141: 781.111: 0 25'?- 8 1139.01 657.66 511.19 5113.58 626.83 786.06.703.66 609.71 P 25'3 3 96.66 172.37 125.11 178.00 1311.97 2511.58 105.19 152.111 3 111-1 3 277.73 333.15 176.77 1.18.55 393.611 587.19 356.88 362.83 78-1 = 211.55 199.82 298.08 216.32 165.85 206.118 2314.10 219.26 @013 315.88 388.33 335.09 127.39 385.10 571.71. 835.89 808.37 LSD 110111113 51.. 55.02 1%- 72.72 LS-u SHOPS 5%- 51.28 l%- 67.78 TABLE IV. 37 Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of muly 1957 through January 1958. FREQJENCY OF ALL 12an SALES (mam) M O N 1' H S 38110? JUL! AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. :AVERAGE 38—1 3 80.00 108.33 121.00 1119.00 152.00 328.67 1115.00 158.86 5 38-2 3 72.67 73.33 86.67 101.00 113.33 188.33 103.00 105.118 H 38.3 x 6.00 7.00 13.00 18.33 2h.00 3h.33 15.67 16.90 0 3844 s 8.00 9.67 12.33 15.67 11.33 18.67 25.00 111.38 :38-5 3 18.67 1411.33 58.00 69.67 67.67 1118.33 75.33 71.86 $12: 19.33 114.67 17.67 25.33 211.00 39.67 25.00 23.67 111111103 38.28 112.89 50.78 63.17 65.39 126.33 611.83 611.52 LSDMONI‘HS 55.2.21; $2.96 LSDSHOPS 5% 2.08 1%- 2.75 VALUE OF ALL RELAIL SALES IN DOLLARS u 0 N 'r H s :SHOP JULY A00. SEPI‘. ocr. NOV. mac. JAN. Amen 38—1 : h58.17 663.17 618.61 77h.76 7h6.70 1568.67 796.02 803.73 :38.2 3 1400.17 1168.21: 559.95 5118.17 566.10 1020.511 563.83 589.57 0 38-3 2 68.21 146.911 107.811 59.68 68.25 126.68 80.11 79.67 P384: 2 311.88 112.25 66.65 70.17 149.112 93.97 118.02 57.91 3 38-5 3 2117.77 167.78 227.10 2170.72 266.02 5811.59 309.82 287.20 moire: : 1217.25 159.00 127.75 262.08 155.23 213.13 133.50 167.85 AvaOE 216.714 257.90 28h.65 325.93 308.62 601.27 321.82 330.99 LSDMONI'HS 5%- 22.82 1%- 30.16 151) SHOPS 5%- 21.111 1%- 27.91. 38 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE III. PRzguaNcr VALUE DF SS MS F SS NS F TOTAL 125 91699 85110910 mourns 6 37510 6252 210.116 8* SHOPS 5 1131117 8683 333.96 8* M x S 30 8559 285 10.96 a. 1mm Bk 2183 26 769101 128181; 9.22 n. 6091891; 1218379 87.60 91* 511620 17051; 1.23 NS 1168295 13908 ~* Significant at the 5% level. ** Significant at the 1% level. ANALYSIS OF VARIAI‘CE FOR TABLE IV. FREQUENCY VALUE DF SS MS 1“ SS MS F TOTAL 125 518035 13211813 MONI‘HS 6 930111 15507 678.22 a.» SHOPS 5 3113185 70637 3071.17 1* M x s 30 79850 2662 115.71. *2 ERROR 81; 1959 23 16956311 282606 118.00 *I- 9588880 1917776 800.711 *lf 17261b7 57538 21.02 ** 201152 2395 39 823 Ind 48.3” 7mm mag: am...— wn.mm I3 33% Imm amaze: and 8.8a 3.2% 8.63 3.93 8.2.... 5&8 2.8m 3.3m SE4 5526: 5&5? 848.2 8.42.3 R622 2&me 3.33 8&83 8.92.? 6489511562 666% $32.3 2.8% 3.6.83 mafimmm 2.3mm $.nfim .333 3.8% zoflBénfi Rag moamfim game. 3.3on 8.2% 853» $288 5.18% 361.3 meo<7aou§ megs 6:2. . .25. .84.! $62 :66 .Emm .84 Ha. - :5” an: H m m a z o : a a was 2H 33 423m Add ho flair SA .5 8.6 Am 25: BA m1~ 4: ~64 uum «was: 9.3 $.66 no.3 3.3 3.6m mm.mm $4.: $6: 6.1% 8§< 5:26: «23 $8 #3 «flu 38 «a: m3: 2.: .289 55.26: $.46 23 $3 $8 2.2 Rn 48 «2. $6 $32 46.3 Sop $3 an: mmm 83 92. «8 ma. zoméééonsnv 83»: .52 1 .25. .86 .162 :86 .53 .63 11 53 as: m an: H. m m a z o : Saga main game a? .6 Magma .PH use HH 3.33. 5 630.308 one sewage coon: madam .338 So Mo 8.353 .8683 3.33950 £80 hon 0H no.2» no women :ouaaaeoo no.3 gnonxocgellacouxoanuuolgzoe .> mama. b0 Rim Simon...” 333 3a.: m3 momma 1. mm... 032 $3.3.“ 1. 23mm «5.. 84.8 8 a x m t. 3% 3.38 5865 I. «8% 58.” 2.3. o a x < 1. 8.3 £8.28 £8.88 1. $.me Re... ~83 H 35 1. 8:3 .838 www.moma x. 8.08 «3.8 «2.83 o maze: i. 8.8a 2.068: 42308.3 1. 8.03; 80.8 «8.08 8 80% 08.818 .333 H8 38... E «86 3.38 8.33 .8... 2...... e a x < t. 5:: .838 83.8.... a. 8.8 «3.8 «Emma 0 95.9.. 1. «ms: £8.28 3.3.2 9. 38 Re... Re... a map: ~8.~£.~ 81m? 9 32. H .506 II a ma - 8 . m m: mm B n=4¢> . .noszdmmm 1 .> 393. 5 copes»... 3% E. B 8.. HHH 00.33.. no.“ ocean—«kg no mass: on» 8AM debfihov 0.“ wank—Had 383. .> mumfia mom MB mo mHmHHdz< TABLE VI. b1 Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent systematic aamplea of all retail sales in the six "mt-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. FREQIENC! OF ALL REPAI L SALES (NUMBER) MONTHS zSHOP JUL! AUG. 5m. ocr. nov. mm. JAN. umm 23-1 : 36.33 15.33 11.33 60.33 65.33 121.67 63.33 62.38 3 25-1 3 69.67 79.67 65.00 85.67 76.67 186.00 73.67 85.19 B 25—2 3 1:14.33 65.33 50.00 57.00 61.67 95.00 61.67 62.111 0 25-3 : 1h.00 18.67 17.67 22.67 27.67 217.00 20.33 211.00 :hl-l : 36.67 1111.67 117.33 55.00 53.67 108.33 50.33 56.57 1761108531111 35.00 h9.67 117.33 55.33 1.8.33 58.33 10.67 h7.81 AVERAGE 39.33 50.56 1.5.28 56.00 55.56 96.06 51.67 56.35 1.50 mourns 5%- 2.63 1%- 3.L-8 1.30 511023 5%- 2.h3 11- 3.22 VALUE OF ALL RETAIL SALES IN DOLLARS MONTHS 2310? __ JUL! 1100. SEPI‘. ocr. NOV. mac. JAN. :Avnucm 23.1 a 212.52 236.81. 258.61 252.18 377.22 602.82 397.60 333.91 :25—1 3 820.hh 665.11 626.90 961.11 793.53 1138.37 638.55 806.29 25-2 s 225.13 782.97 1:50.55 555.59 518.99 800.21 620.32 593.39 :25-3 3 71.61 130.21 126.37 127.37 1118.78 265.93 1119.85 1115.111; 111—1 3 2113.83 280.12 237.142 333.68 391.52 5811.36 365.15 3118.01 :aggfiy: 162.82 235:7). 273.91 202.80 195.80 275.73 2143.17 222.71 5mm 322.73 388.83 323.63 1.05.85 1.08.31 611.23 1.02.27 1.08.29 LSDHONI‘HS 5%— h5.58 1%- 60.25 Isnsmps 55-112.» lit-55.77 112 TABLE VII. Average frequency am value of three 10 per cent systanatic samples of all retail sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through Jamary 1958. FRWENCY OF ALL RETAIL SAIES (NUMBm) u 0 N T H s ;SHOP _ JULY we. 3321‘. car. NOV. 0100. JAN. :AVERAGE 38.1 a 89.00 108.00 122.00 158.33 1&9.33 333.67 186.00 158.05 5 38-2 : 71.00 76.67 78.67 93.00 109.33 1911.00 107.33 103.81 H 38-3 : 3.67 7.67 8.33 18.00 16.67 36.67 15.00 15.10 038.1. a 9.67 6.67 10.67 11.33 9.67 23.33 23.00 13.h8 I>38--5 : h5.00 h3.67 56.67 66.67 69.00 132.67 73.67 69.57 3 38—6 3 17.67 16.33 23.67 28.33 23.00 170.33 21.00 28.33 AVERAGE 39.33 112.56 119.914 62.61 62.83 126.78 6h.33 611.06 18D norms 5%- 1.68 15- 2.22 LSD SHOPS 5%- 1.56 1%- 2.07 _VAIIIE 01? ALL RETAIL SALES IN DOLLARS 38-1 2 38-2 3 38-3 3 384. 8 38—5 8 38-6 3 H AWE mac!!!“ Jan! 193.97 1410.32 1.3.50 66. 73 231.38 117.62 227.25 MONTHS AUG. 679.55 115.87 39.06 hz .38 209 .30 105.82 253.60 31m. 695.85 158.75 99.31 58.19 21.1.. 26 158.11 285.13 LSD moms 5%- 26.22 1%- 311.66 ocr. 850.86 529.50 79.78 111.95 272.89 186.02 326.83 NOV. DEC. 762.11 15h0.83 510.33 1086.95 10.82 314.33 325.11: 158.00 306.29 162.37 128.13 188.61 189.23 592.68 13D SiOPS 5%- 211.26 : SHOP JAN. 8AVERME 772.36 577.16 69.52 32.77 285.77 136.83 312.16 827.93 568.h5 77.3h 57.25 293.91 150.17 329.18 1%- 32.07 1:3 ANALYSIS (F VARIANCE FOR TABLE VI. FREQUENCY VALUE 1)? SS US I" : 35 MS F TorrAL 125 90151 8831370 MONTHS 6 36810 6135 191.72 at 10103143 168391 17.61. a SHOPS 5 112111.16 81.89 265.28 *9 6812580 1282516 1314.32 9* M x s 30 8217 27h 8.56 *9 606397 20213 2.12 a.» ERROR 81; 2678 32 802050 95148 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE VII. ‘AFREQUE‘N‘CY VALUE 09 SS NS F _“__A «i “35 NS F __ TOTAL 125 529867 13365981; MONTHS 6 93786 15631 1202.38 *2 1589168 2621861 83.81. «rt-u- snops 5 356550 71310 51485.38 a 10009902 2001980 633.7h a» M x S 30 781.30 2611. 201.08 n 1501518 50051 15.8h 4» ERROR an 1101 13 265396 3159 5.3 J: mos: 1mm way: 93 :43 IRA onéw lam 92.20: a 2.8m 8&3 938 onmm 1:88 onion 84% 233 mag: 55262 828mg mo.mom~.n @553 2.02.3 328.5” 34.33 36me R .mmmm .522. 35:0: 3.6% 3.633 3.133 «3132 aflflmm $.83 m~.~Qm 2.36m: $.83 Bmxoénfi @604 3.413% 3.035 .8685” $.22. 4.733 3.33 2..”me 3.83 391378350 .8555 3.8.... 1 .25. .89 .82 .80 35a .2: Be. as: H as: H , m a z o s 1 1 9348 E mfia dfimm A: .6 ma; 24 J: 8.0 .mm 86mm 84 8.~ J: 6m; uum amaze: a 8.8 8.9.. 34.3 ma.mm . Hm.am 3.3 3.3 mm.mn mafia: 5520: H33 88 22 38 38 $3 2.3 3.: 2.8.1. GEE: 8.3 2.8 33 «RN and ES 6% 62. we. zomxoénfi mmém 82. ca 3: 83 82 ms 03 m2 zomxo Ea H> nuance 5 30.800.“ 0.3 uowunobm 00023 coach H.233 Haw no 033.3 0323;» .58 you S 32» no 323 8368.86 8.8 geomaouwufiglgnofloa...“ o :25: an; 33‘s 03.0 0.3.30; 3.“... 0:..m 8a 000% 1. mm.m «9.3 mom.8a.~ .3 3.00 as: 30.00 8 a x m * 01~ .3th «3.3 I. 8.3 00m; 08... 0 a x 4 1. 00.3 33:3 3030... I. 3.03 30.0 Sum H 23: .0. «0.00 08.03 80.5%.... 1. 00.000 03.00 03.02 0 00.50: I. 3.3... 23.30.." «3.03.3 1. 3:5: 000.00 000.0% 0a 000% 00043.3 03.0% flu 0:2. Z .508 .3th «3.00 00m; 08... 0 a x 4 t. 3.8 0033 80.2%... 1. 0.0.3 03.0... 0&5: 0 «0.50: I 00.00 33:3 333m 02 5.... 2km 20.0 H 0&5. 50.2.0.0. 02:5 2 022. H .305 0 9 mm :1 . u m: 1:3 1.0m: n00<> . nozapqumm .HHE .22. 3 8.5880 3.0 a... as 0.8 E 82:. .8 893.3» u. «33.5 93 a9... 3228 a. 33.38. .30. .2: 50:. 000 5:33 .8 2235 1 / 1.10 TABLE IX. Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent stratified random samples of arrangement sales in the six "must-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. FRMIENCI OF ARRANCEIEN'I' SALES (WEBER) __ u 0 n 'r H S ;Snop Jun AU 0. SEgr.__ocr_.M nov. mac. JA_N_. :AVERAGE 23.1 x 15.00 17.00 9.00 19.33 18.67 21.00 29.00 17.95 : 25-1 : 145.33 217.33 112.00 53.67 112.67 39.33 118.67 £15.57 0 25—2 3 30.67 141.00 36.33 33.67 39.67 33.00 33.67 35.113 P 25-3 3 10.33 13.33 11.00 10.33 9.67 10.33 8.67 10.52 S 111-1 : 19.00 26.00 18.00 30.67 29.33 211.33 31.00 26.153 78.1 : 16.67 16.67 18.67 15.33 111.33 11.33 19.33 16.05 13mm“ 22.83 26.89 _22.50 27.17 25.17 211.89 27.83 425.33 LSD mourns Sit-1.56 1%- 2.07 LSDSHOPS 51.1.11; 11.1.91 ELM: 01" 1211111001310 SALE_S_ IN poms __-_ _ ___ _ _ - u 0 N T H S “35110? _ JULY AU 0. 1 SEPI‘ . OCT. NOV. 030. JAN. hvmcm s 23.1 : 100.23 116.92 58.00 162.89 153.80 168.7h 209.00 138.86 B 25~1 3 1155.06 396.71 109.63 1.81.77 1108.23 328.67 511.96 1127.83 0 2&2: 251.92 315.96 298.73 283.06 3115.80 270.36 299.72 2911.115 P 25.3 a 55.67 78.611 611.99 81.79 711.92 77.33 59.33 70.38 3 111-1 3 135.25 182.h2 119.17 197.13 115.56 2113.36 222.37 182.17 36%. 123.38 113.08 1116.67 126.13 100.00 76.17 1147.10 118.98 533101; 186.92 200.62 182.20 222.18 209.65 190.05 211g 205._3_1 Is015017175 5%- 1S.97 1%- 21.11 ISD SHOPS Sac-111.78 1%- 19.5h ‘47 TABLE. X. Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent stratified random samples of arrangement sales in the six "In—Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. FREGJEI‘DY 0F ARRANGEMENT SALES (NUMBER) _M_O _n 1: H S :SHOP _ JULY 3110. SEPT. ocr. 17ng DEC. JAN. “£15333; 38.1 2 62.00 65.33 53.00 58.00 60.00 61.00 62.67 57.63 : 38.2 x 63.67 66.67 60.33 50.00 66.00 66.00 66.33 66.63 0 38-3 3 2.33 3.67 7.00 5.67 8.33 6.33 6.00 5.62 P 38.6 s 3.67 6.67 6.33 5.33 5.33 6.67 3.33 6.81 8 38-5 3 19.67 16.67 17.67 22.33 21.67 33.33 31.67 23.00 38.6 x 15.00 8.33 10.33 13.33 15.33 8.00 10.00 11.68 AVERAGE 21.06 23.89 22.17 25.78 25.78 26.22_ 26.33 26.66 ' Isnmonrns 5%- 1.78 1%- 2.35 LSD 91023 5%- 1.66 1%- 2.20 IAIUE 02‘ ARRANGEMENT SALES IN DOLLARS_ .1 __ M 0 N 1' H S -1: zsnop _ JUII 100. SM. ocr. NOV. DEC. JAN. :AVERAGE S 3&1 : 290.61 660.98 376.67 616.20 390.66 619.66 677.67 601.66 H 38.2 s 285.27 319.62 283.95 329.77 275.52 321.80 307.80 302.92 0 38.3 x 13.81 15.75 36.81 37.02 35.62 36.90 26.28 28.28 P 38.6 3 17.50 36.17 25.17 29.62 32.17 17.58 17.62 25.06 S 38.5 a 112.25 90.25 102.65 128.57 120.16 197.77 178.00 132.78 fl???“ 106.33 55.33 71.83 87.75 120.57 61.00 67.33 81.18 iEBACE 137.59 159.35 169.65 170.90 162.60 175.65 178.72 161.98 13]) Mourns 57— 13.00 15- 17.19 LSD 311023 5% 12.05 1%. 15.93 48 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE IX. AFREQUENCMY VALUE DF 55 MS 3 z _ SS 76 #F TOI‘AL 125 21280 2123091 MONTHS 6 678 79.67 7.07 3* 67521 7920 6.17 11* SHOPS 5 13827 3665.60 325. 26 *1!- 1866890 369378 315.17 ** SHOPS 5 5036? 10069.60 687.33 36* M X s 30 1903 ERROR 86 1231 63.63 16.65 h033 *3" M x s 30 1528 50.93 6.52 *8 130222 6361 3.70 am ERROR 86 967 11.27 98658 1172 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE )1. _ FREQUENCY VALUE __1__ _ DI; _SS MS 1“ SS us _ Fv_; TOTAL 125 53971 2725791 MONTHS 6 690 81.67 5.57 H 23398 3900 5.01 6* 2567577 509515 656.90 +11» 65378 778 69 hm; IR." om.m lam mg and 8.9 IE“ 3.0." lam mmazo: a $.an 3.08 7 - Essa 8.8a $63 $33 3.9: 8A3 BEL. 5582 mmficmh 18.83 $.33 3.2.2. sow.$mm 8.2.16 8.33 .28.“. 5:50: 3.8." 3.848 8.32 moémam 3.33 3.2.3 «0.8.3 «Q83 $.03w 598$.le inflow 3.$mmm 3.33 mm.~3m «p.93 35:3 8.2km 348m. Hmfionm zomwoélmouso @310; 3.8,... a is. .89 :52 .80 .Eum .9: BE. as: 1 n m m a z o a . 3.38 E as,” Eaézéfi mo Eds 18.0 15 3.0 1mm may: 84 RA 4H 34 1mm $520: a $.13 8.3 3.3 2.3 3.8 2.0». $5. 13.8 84%: Exes: ma 0% :m mmm :8 43 8e .28“. Size: 3 .3 45 NS 5... 3: man o2 men 3984; mn.m~ 8m 93 mm; 23 m3 £4 .23 2096438130 mug: . .25. .86 .82 .80 .EB .22 5% as: . m m m a z o a Afimzmzv mafia 5523.: .8 wozmzaafi .N and NH 333. 5 030.800." 0.3 03805 ones: seas» $350933 no unison sea 33:: 22.12.52.123 11213823: 228.257.250.16381 .2 33 mg 0833 8.2 SEN 8H 88m 50 1. EA H88 83g 1. 3.: 8% HQ; 8 a a m mz 84 am: mafia mz $4 8.8 ofi o a x < I :33 83: 833 mz GA 8.5 S H mfifi 1 8.3 «8.2 $.83 a. 3.2 2.3.“ go o $an 1. 2.03 333 $4333 a. 8&8 3.86 5.8 2 98% 813.3 882. am .288. n «8% 3m: 3m; 8.8 8H 0 a x 4 .. $6 «8.3 $8.3 .. 84. 8d: as o 8.20: I. 8.3. 833 08.83 m: mn.~ 8.5 S a 3% 8883 m8: 3 .289 HmBS h 9. mm . m 9 mm .8 11 maj; . noznaiammm yd" .33 5 c3535 33 B. x E. a :22. .3 3232: “o :52“ 2: Sc 35% 3 3935 a: .2 33 5.8 8283 8 «523 51 TABLE XII. Average frequency and value of three 10 per cent systematic sanples of arrangement sales in the six "mt-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through Jamary 1958. ERNENCY OF ARRANGEEM‘ SAIES (NJMBER) 3 N 0 N 'r N s :suop y JULY AU 0. 33m. 001. Nov. 0130. JAN. :AvaGE 3 23.1 a 16.67 17.33 13.33 18.33 22.67 19.00 25.33 18.95 H 254 : 18.00 51.33 10.33 52.67 18.00 111.33 1111.00 746.67 0 25-2 : 28.67 37.00 31.00 30.67 36.33 31.33 29.00 32.00 P 25-3 : 8.00 10.67 10.00 9.33 12.33 12.33 9.00 10.21: s 1.1-1 : 22.00 29.67 23.33 31.33 28.00 32.33 29.33 28.00 78-1 3 15.00 20.00 111.67 13.00 15.67 11.00 19.67 15.57 Mm: 23.06 27.67 22.28 25.89 27.17 211.56 __26.06 25.214 130 10871173 5%- 1.62 1%- 2.15 131) SHOPS 5%- 1.hB 1%- 1.96 FALUE 0F ARRANcmENr SALES IN DOLIARS k N 0 N 'r a s :3802 __ JUL! me. 52m. 001. Nov. ‘ngg. JAN. :mmcm: 3 23-1 : 125.111 133.56 98.88 136.03 188.15 168.53 21h.83 152.20 R 25-1 : 1186.08 1:13.70 382.38 52h.18 1176.21. 363.75 1122.29 1142.66 25.2 a 230.00 3011.61; 250.97 263.21 285.21 280.05 238.31 261.63 :25—3 3 146.05 63.16 67.66 63.67 85.112 78.83 82.76 69.65 171-1 : 152.33 215.17 158.17 211.69 203.23 21.1.1.1 221.27 200.17 8 78-1 : 110.16 139.50 121.12 103.83 10h.67 77.89 161.70 117.07 113211108 191.72 216.62 179.91 217.10 223.82 201.75 223.53 207.78 LSDMON‘I‘HS Sat-13.11; 175-17.37 Lsnsmps 55.12.17 15.16.09 52 TABLE XIII. Average frequency ani value of three 10 per cent systematic samples of arrangenent sales in the six ”In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through Jamary 1958. WY 0? ARRANGEMENI‘ SALES (NUMBER) 11 0 N 'r H s 1 :snop _ JUL! we. saw. 001. NOV. DEC. JAN. :AVERAGE 38—1 3 52.00 63.67 511.33 67.33 56.67 63.00 63.33 60.05 38.2 3 142.67 146.33 35.00 38.00 115.00 112.00 116.67 112.21; 38-3 : 2.67 3.33 11.00 6.67 11.00 5.00 11.67 11.33 3844 3 6.33 11.67 2.67 5.00 11.00 b.33 3.00 11.29 38-5 : 19.67 1h.67 15.33 22.00 22.33 27.33 32.00 21.90 38-6 3 12.67 10.33 114.67 15.00 10.33 9.33 10.00 11.76 was 22.67 23.83 21.00 25.67 23.72 25.17 26.61 2h.10 18D MONI'HS 5%- l.62 1%- 2.12 LSD SHOPS 5%— 1.h8 1%- 1.96 EALUE W ARRANGE-HEM SALES IN DOLIARS 1 N 0 N T H s ;SHOP _ JULY AUG. segr. 001. Nov. DEC. JAN. :umm 38-1 : 365.5h 1139.19 377.32 507.67 387.05 h39.h6 1155.19 11211.19 38-2 : 290.33 293.95 2119.111 266.27 288.60 282.66 326.03 285.28 38.3 2 18.62. 19.83 20.17 35.03 16.08 19.73 20.1.2 21.1.2 38—h : 28.72 26.00 17.83 27.67 19.33 22.33 111.83 22.39 38—5 3 1211.92 98.03 117.62 132.18 156.30 137.68 186.12 136.12 $1! : 100.33 69.83 110.52 99.12 75.83 62.67 73.83 817.63 mmcm 1511.75 157.81 118.77 118.01,. 157.20 160.76 179.10 162.39 LSD NONrHs 5%- 12.13 1%- 16.011 LSD amps 5%- 11.2h 1%- 111.86 01880:!!!» 53 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XII. FREjUENCY VALUE 11.. DF 35 us F : 33 113 F TOTAL 125 20671 2070873 MONTHS 6 1.115 711.17 6.18 no 311112 5235 6.59 H S-IOPS 5 18280 3656.00 3011.171 *8 1865960 373192 1.70.02 «4 N x s 30 937 312.33 26.01 N 106765 3559 11.118 4-» mam 81. 1009 12.01 66736 7911 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XIII. FREQUENCY VALUE y DF 53 NS F : as MS F Tour. 125 56565 . 28651112 MONTHS 6 392 65.33 5.51: 381 111923 21.87 3.67 «a snops 5 53791. 10758.80 911.76 n 2730183 51.6037 806.55 «1* m x s 30 1388 116.27 3.92 n 6311113 2115 3.12 a mm: 81. 991 11.80 56863 677 mmé lad owé tum 35 a mmodn lad mmé Ium 93.20: a 8.3a 7 548 3.42 $.63 5.87“ .333 3.1.3 8...: ”@7152 35an 8.38.1 3&3» 7773.33 7 1.?me677 $4.3. 3.3% 2.3.6 9.3% 2.8.... Size: $.me «6.8.18 8.8mm $.98 «6.26.8 2.1.on 8.1.1.8 $.33 9.38 .633; mnébw Adomaow 3.30: 343m mséwo: mméomm Qémwm S.mmmm ooJmam zomxgwlglaao 767075521389 1 u u .25. .85 .82 .80 .Emm: .63 SE. ‘1‘ ‘lll‘l i as: . an: m m a z o a . 7 7 3.58 2H mfifi 51535 .8 was, % 3.0 J? $6 1mm was: EA 3.” J2 £4 in 2:29 am SAN 2.8 $13 13.3 23%.. 3.3 mean 8.2 835 3220.2 3% gm mac «8 mum 6377 Rm «mm 3.8.“. Hugo: 223 RR 63 mm; 1.3 we: 2h .8: mo; zomuosln flaw omen $3 «.3 mg 63 .8; mg 3: 285578150 62%;. .52. is. .86 .82 .80 .56 .63 EB. a a « 771177 117 111171 1111117117 a” «Mada m m a z o a a ‘1‘ 14‘1“ ll ‘ 1"“ lllll ‘1}“1 7 l Afimegv v.33 Esmozéfi mo waweammm .HE and HM noses 5.. 36.309" 9% sewage; coon: no?» 9523588 no «395» 6.38.3»? oboe son 3 66.2» no women 1.633360 no.3 soonxomwnsnallzcoexomuluolpge .Ex mam: 55 02. 00.0.0.2 00.3 000.0 02 0055 t. 3.0 $0.0 000.02 3. 8.0 3.00 "an.“ 8 a x m 02 a; 0.3: 000.0 .. mmé 00.00 00a 0 a a < 1. R65 2.2.02 2.2.03 .3. 00.0 00.3 «0 a may: 1. $0 «8.0 2.3.0 1. 00.0 8.00” 50 0 02202 I. 5.000 20.03 310%.: a. 3.80 03.00; 30.2. S 2000 $0.80.m 03.2. RN .222. S .806 0.3: 000.0 00.00 02 0 a u < .. an... «8.0 23.0 02 30.0 8.02 30 0 02202 t. 3.00 2.2.03 03.02 mz 2.... 00.8 «0 a 0.9:. $0.02 30 an 032. H .506 m m- 8 a 9 mm .8 upa<> nozaamumu HHN 3.33. you n 3523 go 30353 85 8.8 605.30 a.“ 39293 35. .5 32:. 5 308080 33 30 Ex 05 .3» 0.8:. 80 0233 .8 mafia... TABLE XV. 56 Average frequency'and value of two 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales in the 81x "Out-of-Jacksan" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through Jenuary'1958. FRMIEMIY OF ALL REI'AIL SALES (NUMBER) MONTHS zSHOP JUL! AUG. am. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. 21mg; 23-1 3 38.50 hh.50 36.00 72.00 61.00 123.00 56.00 61.57 s 25.1 : 60.50 72.50 68.00 8h.00 68.50 151.50 71.50 82.35 H 25.2 : u7.50 66.00 52.50 56.50 62.50 95.00 69.00 60.1h 0 25-3 3 17.00 23.50 18.00 19.50 20.00 h5.50 18.50 23.1h :hl-l : 39.50 145.00 36.00 62.50 50.50 108.00 50.50 56.57 78.1 x 37.00 50.50 51.00 50.50 hh.50 53.50 h0.00 h6.71 gngRAGE h0.00 50.33 h3.58 57.50 51.83 96.08 50.92 55.75 15D mourns 5%- 6.67 1%- 8.82 LSD SHOPS 5%- 6.17 1%- 8.16 yawn. 01“ ALL RErAIL SALES IN nouns __ ‘_ ___A u 0 N r H s :suops _ JULY AUG. 3891'. 001'. nov. 0100. JAN. :AVERAGE :3 23-1 : 218.17 237.57 138.02 359.98 333.38 507.59 310.0h 306.39 '14 25—1 2 616.50 702.59 7hh.8h 10h2.63 689.85 1079.h7 771.06 806.76 (3 25-2 : h8h.53 031.31 522.h2 571.h7 657.32 8&3.oh 750.h1 608.6h 1? 25-3 : 92.28 113.13 95.15 168.01 130.18 252.88 106.63 lhl.11 hl-l : 319.35 338.60 16h.78 h88.76 379.58 555.77 383.98 375.83 :: 78g1yz 229.uh 20u.15 296.03 186.85 170.32 213.61 208.00 215.h8 .AVERAGE 326.70 3h2.95 326.87 h69.62 393.hh 581.99 h21.68 h09.03 130 MONTHS 5%- 52.52 1%- 69.l;3 LSD SHOPS 51- 118.62 11:- 611.28 5? TABLE XVI. Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent stratified random samples of all retail sales in the six "In—Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. FREQUENCY OF AIJ.RETAIL SALES (NUMBER) M O N T H S JUL! AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. __;saop JAN. QAVERAGE 1h0.00 153.93 3 38-2 : 7h.00 72.50 90.00 98.50 115.00 190.50 106.50 106.71 R 38-3 : 5.50 6.50 12.00 19.50 28.50 29.00 13.50 15.79 0 38—h : 8.50 10.00 1h.50 16.00 11.00 19.50 26.50 15.1h ‘P 38—5 : hh.00 h5.50 56.00 70.00 68.50 150.50 79.00 73.36 8 38-6 : 20.00 111.50 15.50 25.00 26.00 38.50 25.00 23.50 Amen 38.83 1.2.67 51.50 61.75 66.67 126.67 65.08 6h.7h ILSD'MONTHS 5%— 2.20 15- 2.90 LSD snops 5%— 2.02 15- 2.67 351.02 or ALL RETAIL SALES IN DOLLARS M 0 N’ T H s :SHOP ___ Jun: N00. SEPT. oer. Nov. DEC. 38—1 : h58.9h 650.32 639.13 737.07 759.37 1602.h2 38-2 : 398.70 h51.28 62h.05 536.79 560.28 1019.68 38-3 : 53.03 2h.16 132.01 68.35 57.78 91.79 38-h : 39.20 h5.13 h9.85 52.88 52.13 102.22 38—5 : 231.10 169.95 208.89 222.h0 262.76 567.98 ca ‘6 <3 2! La 38-6 : 126.63 200.25 126.63 326.75 170.68 205.70 n!’ .AVERAGE 217.93 256.85 296.76 323.37 310.50 598.29 LSD MONTHS 5%- 21.79 15- 28.80 LSD SHOPS 5%— 20.19 3 JAN. :AVERAGE 759.37 800.9h 608.58 599.91 h8.h5 67.36 57.28 56.95 318.06 282.hh 129.75 183.77 319.58 331.89 1%- 26.68 58 ANALYSIS W VARIANCE FOR TABLE XV. FasquNcr VALUE or 83 143 F i as us F TOTAL 83 62386 5928698 NONrHs 6 25128 11188 30.79 a. 622605 103768 12.28 a.» snops 5 271.10 51482 1.0.31 u 8868691 892938 105.61. .8 M x s 30 1.181 138 1.01 NS 186379 16213 1.92. mm 1.2 5707 136 355023 81.53 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XVI. 1783;001:1553! VALUE 1)? 83 MS_ F : as us I" 'I‘OI‘AL 83 31.8296 891.3566 MONTHS 6 62176 10363 701.82 *8 1098035 183006 125.69 a SHOPS 5 228869 1.5771. 3101.22 a» 6865103 1293021 888.06 is!» M x s 30 56631 1888 127.91 «8 1319271 113976 30.20 a... mum hz 620 111.76 61157 11.56 «0.8 lad 8.3” lam mg n3 mmém IfiH «3.9.... Imm amazon :3 3.2% 53% 34mm R63 843 8.6% «Qua... 8:54 SEES awe—”mm 5&55 flammo 9.8.3 $.33 8.3% 3.8.: $.22 3.36 .289 3:26: 939% 3.3:. .852 3.8% 8.32 4738 3.33 28684qu $.88 $.88 @983 3.33 9&mmm 3.3.2 «4.8% 28334980 . ZS. . 0mm .>oz . .80 . Emm .2: EB. m m 9 z o S S9 mgoa 2H mafia AHdem Add me wa<> 2.1.. J: 8; Am 952 BA . 3.; JR 8% 7% $1.26: Ba 85m @319 SS 3% 43.; 88% 3.6... 8E4 3:an «an 7 n5... 9...: HQ: .33 23 ea .38 Brazos a2. 83 com dz. m3 Nam 34 2854; do 32 m8 0% mum 1.8 84 5337.67.50 .5... .86 .82 .86 .Emm .2: GE. m m u. z o .— Afieszv Eda fifimm .31.. .8 SEQE .E can >x 66.33. 5 cocoon?" 0.3 39325 ones: no.3. .336.» .3.» no :35» Beacon 833936 .566 you ca 25. no 633 533980 noun enonxoawncb.ngomxouhlmisos .HH: H.849 60 $63 8163 «m5. 526 .8 855 1... 3.6 48.3 86384 I. 939 $13 «2.66 8 a m m t. omé 4.0.3; 135: I. 2.3 «a «ER 6 a x 4 1. .26m 86.3... «$.68 t. 8.3 mama 938 H «as. 1:. 3.6m 63....3 $6.63: .3 3.63 36.3 mats 6 91:5: .2. 3.8... 63.90: aaiaaa 1 3.0.2 3.6.3 2.0.63. 2 88m 31313 26.43 1.3 .389 S .868 .12.: 3.32 Na mama 6 a x < 1. 3.3 6.3.68 $6.68; 1. 3.1: «8.? mafia 6 «was: 1. 2.1: 85.6.3 36.2.6. mz 3% «$8 an; a 99: «3.28; 36.8 9 22. H .566 m 9 mm m a. 8 .8 apq<> nonmadamm .35 canon. 5 3:30am 33 and Han new a nuance you noucaauab «0 93.3.93 on» 50.5 33.506 a.“ 9333.8 339 .Hbe ”.849 mom wodemSw (.8 ”Haas: TABLE XVIII. 61 Average frequency and value of two ‘10 per cent systematic samples of all retail sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. mmumcx 01? ALL RETAIL SALES (mm) MONTHS JSHOP JUL! AUG. SEPT. ocr. ‘ NOV. DEC. Jig. :AVERME 23-1 3 36.00 16.00 1111.00 62.00 65.00 119.00 614.00 62.29 3 25—1 : 70.00 82.00 63.00 86.50 70.00 150.50 78.00 86.71 2 25.2 2 83.00 63.50 52.50 57.00 68.00 95.00 63.00 62.57 25.3 : 11.50 16.00 16.50 28.00 27.00 h6.50 19.50 23.00 r’hap1 : 35.50 85.00 87.00 55.50 51.50 111.00 50.00 56.60 S 78-1 3 3h.oo 52.00 117.00 52.50 1.7.50 57.50 1.0.50 1.7.29 AlgERAGE 38.33 50.75 h5.00 56.25 5h.83 96.58 51.83 56.22_ 1.50 mourns 5%- 3.13 1%- h.13 LSD SHOES 51- 2.89 1%. 3.82 EALUE OF ALL RETAIL SALE IN DOLLARS L I 23—1 : 25—1 2 25—2 3 25—3 : hl-l : S 78-1 #8010) MOMEE! JUL! 220.89 783.89 h27.57 61.h8 286.75 161.77 AVE-1MB 317.06 MONTHS AUG. , 263.79 708.12 851.27 115.79 280.05 237.03 h09.33 §E§T- 297.8h 682.07 b85.30 123.81 238.00 2h7.99 339.17 LSD mourns sz- h7.32 1$- 62.55 001. 257.51 856.12 569.39 1h0.75 312.7h 182.33 386.h7 NOV. 28h.19 DEC. 580.99 820.30 1263.58 521.17 1h6.99 28h.71 169.69 387.76 833.98 2h8.99 623.79 209.86 626.86 13) SI-DPS 5%- 133.82 JAN. h01.25 651.17 678.81 1h2.18 386.60 221.25 013.58 : SHOP :AVERAGE 3b3.78 817.89 623.93 139.92 338.95 208.27 h11.h6 1%— 59.72 62 TABLE XIX. Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent systematic samples of all retail sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. FREQUENCY OF ALL REI‘AIL SALES (MMBFR) M 0 N 'r H s :suop JULY AUG. SEPT. 001. Nov. 0100. JAN. :AVERAGE 38-1 2 93.50 110.50 118.00 161.00 151.50 330.00 185.50 158.57 S 38.2 : 70.50 72.50 80.00 89.50 108.50 195.50 108.00 103.50 H38—3 : 3.00 7.00 8.50 19.00 17.50 37.00 111.00 15.11; 0 38—h : 10.00 7.00 11.50 10.50‘ 9.50 23.00 23.50 13.57 P38--5 : 117.00 112.50 57.50 68.50 70.50 133.50 73.50 70.111. 338.6 x 18.00 15.00 25.50 25.50 211.00 38.00 20.50 23.79 AVERAGE 1.0.33 1.2.1.2 50.17 62.33 63.58 126.17 611.17 621.17 Lsnmomns Sir-11.91 1%- 6.h9 LSD Sims 5%- h.55 1%- 6.02 VALUEOFALL RErAILSALsSIN DOLLARS M 0 N 'r H s ;SHOP JULY AUG. SEPT. ocr. Nov. 011:. JAN. :AVERAGE 38—1 3 516.61 705.89 6811.07 889.91 777.58 11123.58 705.85 820.38 3 38—2 8 1135.73 385.05 1.18.20 1167.13 1187.18 1056.29 572.59 516.01 H 38.3 x 81.07 85.80 138.99 90.95 51.05 152.53 66.50 83.27 0 38-11 3 85.311 36.50 65.00 36.80 314.88 139.32 37.13 62.11; P 38.5 2 2116.19 228.10 2h8.95 301.89 330.63 1110.31: 291.73 298.30 838-6: 123.68 69.63 171.66 11.2.23 1110.25 188.75 126.00 137.86 fivmos 21.1.1.3 2155.11. 287.11; 321.88 303.59 566.79 306.56 3211.59 LSD MONTHS 5%- 22.ho 1%- 29.61 LSD snaps 5%- 20.7h 1%- 27.1.2 63 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABIE XVIII. FREAUENCI VAL_UE DF SS 15 F SS us F TorAL 83 62386 6381285 MOM‘HS 6 25518 8252 182.06 +1 780783 123868 17.99 m. SHOPS 5 29828 5966 199.33 *1 8715602 983120 137.88 *0 M x S 30 6326 211 7.05 *1 596716 19891 2.90 *2 ERROR 82 1257 29.93 288188 6862 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE xxx. FREQUENCY VALUE DF 88 NS F 58 NS F __ Tom 83 358312 8285092 moms 6 61018 10170 137.91 *1:- 888807 188135 96.25 *8 SHOPS 5 239298 87859 689.29 41-11 11 x S 30 50908 1697 23.02 .1. ERROR 82 3096 73.71 611072511 12811151 832.65 91* 8811385 68686 29880 19.16 .. 1539 3.3.. IRA mm.md tum and a 3.4m nu." 3.9m lam 9329— a 85.x 3.8m 8.6% 3.03 23mm 161163 Swan 3me 8§< wales: 8.983 5.38 8AM911A 3.38 3.33 9mg. 68%? $.83 1 38.1. 3.29. mmen «5.32.... 8.2.3 $.88 3.93 8.53 Qumfim 2.22%. 3...ch 385:.qu 3.3 aflmomfi $693 2.3%. 8&3 3.33 8.23 3.33 3.8% Emmoéusonso @1452. .53 . .24.. 485 .82 .98 .Emm .63 SE. 4.52” as: H 1 m. 1 m a :1 o a u a ‘1‘1 1‘ ‘ll 1 $2.58 2H 8.5 6351 a: .8 1.131% “.81 :3 .3 0m; 1% mam. an 7 3A .3 .80. 1% amazon fig 18.8 8.3 131.3 1 ”SW1 0.8 8.5 8.3 1 Hanna 1 83». 8.12% 11 11 33 an” Q31 3.: «2:1 1.0.03 £3 1.13 .28... 5526: S .3 8% ct. .23 n2. 3.. «8 «R as z8§§1fi 8.3 33 «8 «mi 93 En 2m m8 8; 69.378186 BE: .289 . 4?. .86 .8: .So .95 .63 11.52. 111 11 35m 15: m1: -1 1: -1 1 m m1 a m1 o a 1: 1 1 1 ‘l 1" 4% 8.5. 3:91 a: so H2852.» .HHN and HG: 3.3.3. 5 39890.“ 0.8 mousse»... 03:: 3.23 :30." Had no moans." 03303.9 £80 ham 3 25 no woman 303.3980 no.3 snouxouatficllgconxomnluolasoa JR 5mg. 65 8«.._ om«.«mn «9% «mm... .3 Ba 1. 8.... 3023 318.3 I. 3.3 4mm on«.«m 8 a an «2 fl.« «a... «ome .1. .35 o8 «2.... o a a 4 1. $6. 8.6% 8.6% I. and 3.} «.3.« a was. i .m.«« H$.«o« «8.2%.. t. $4.3 «8.2 «2.3 o «522. .2. 8.43 03.3: «$.31: t. 3.3m «3.8 «fi.$« 2 «men «8.8%.: m9}: «3 3.8.... S «86 «a... Smam 8m «2... o a x < I. «.18 «$.«8 «8.2“: I 8.: «8.3 «2.3 o «529 1. om.mn mafia moms: «2 RA 3.5 «.36 H «is. 8.6.3.” «2.3 on .28... H .506 m 1 1m: an m 9 mm .5 1 1 na1d> n«zm=anm« .5. 023. 5 3.58.... 38 8.. fix 3. SE .32.... you 35...... «o 3.53... on... .8... 8.5.8... 3 3.52.. 35. d 39.... mo... 823m; .8 «3524 TABLE XXI . 66 Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent. ”In—Shop" systematic samples of all retail sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. FREQUENCY OF ALL REPAIL SALES (NUMBER) N 0 N T H s :snop _ JULY 1110. 51m. 001'. Nov. DEC. JAN. :AVE'MGE 23-1 : 37.00 1.6.50 1.1.00 60.50 614.00 123.00 61.50 61.93 S 25.1 3 67.00 77.00 66.50 80.50 76.50 1116.50 73.50 83.93 H 25—2 : 175.00 63.00 50.50 58.00 67.00 97.50 60.50 63.07 0 25-3 2 17.00 19.00 18.00 21.50 26.00 uh.50 18.50 23.50 Phlol : 37.00 hh.00 117.00 5h.50 55.00 111.00 50.00 56.93 $3 36.00 1.9.50 147.00 57.50 713.00 59.50 39.50 177.173 £32108 39.83 119.83 £15.00 55.112 55.25 97.00 50.58 56.13 Lsnmom'us 5%.. 0.81 12.1.07 LSDSIIJPS 5%- 0.73 1%- 0.97 EALUE OF ALL REPAIL SALES IN DOLLARS M 0 N 'r n s :saop JULY 100. SM. 001‘. Nov. DEC. JAN. :AVERAGE 23-1 3 230.01 21.2.1.8 198.99 259.32 300.18 52.9.11; 381.01; 308.73 5 25-1 : 7514.117 6614.80 591.35 772.26 727.12 1161.37 708.146 768.55 H 25-2 2 1109.87 6314.12 1:37.148 533.29 662.37 907.51: 586.33 595.86 0 25-3 2 89.hh 120.33 150.90 1b6.85 138.21 282.52 120.15 1&3.h8 :Ll-l : 2611.85 290.b8 2804.0 3311.50 389.87 625.18 3311.52 359.97 .. 78.1 3 182.22 188.92 2514.11 233.10 171.27 285.19 209.63 217.82 AVERAGE 321.81 356.85 318.87 379.89 397.50 628.53 390.02 399.07 LSD MONTHS 5%- h3.68 1:!- WM. LSD $8093 5%- ho.h3 1%- 53.hh TABLE XXII. 67 Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent "In-Shop" systematic samples of all retail sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. gamma! OF ALL REI‘AIILSAAALES (NUMBER) MONTHS EU!!_ AUG. SEPT . OCT. NOV. DEC. AJAN. :SHOP :AVERAGE 38-1 38-2 3 38—3 : 38-h : 38-5 3 .383: AVERAGE UJ’OOI-fim 83.50 69.00 6.50 7.50 82.50 18.00 37.83 108.50 78.00 8.00 8.00 36.00 15.50 h1.67 122.50 82.00 9.00 12.00 53.00 22.00 150.00 97.00 19.50 15.00 69.00 25.50 50.O_8_ 62.67 LSD MONTHS ss— 0.ho 1%. 0.52 1219.00 109.00 19.00 10.50 68.50 23.00 63.17_ 329.50 189.50 37.00 21.00 129.00 37.50 5123.92 LSD SHOPS 5%- 0.38 VALUE OF ALL RETAIL SALES IN DOLIARS 1116.50 106.00 17.00 23.00 75.00 23.00 65.08 1%— 0.50 155.61 103.79 16.57 13.86 37.57 123.50 63.h9 38-l : 38.2 x mm 38-3 : 38-h P 38-5 3 38-6 0 O. M AVERA (E JUL! 505.15 378.70 127.h2 29.75 20h.66 135.50 229.53 MONTHS .100. 675.56 h58.83 29.06 h0.50 18h.86 213.13 266.92 SEPT. 656.68 873.30 h2.30 65.95 191.h2 118.00 257.98 LSD MONTHS S$- 21.21 1%- 28.08 ocr.’_ 793.00 631.73 86.90 b7.25 258.98 170.50 331.39, NOV. DEC. 795.95 1h78.99 585.85 h7.h8 39.00 291.00 135.68 309.16 962.01 118.21 106.70 878.05 215.50 559.28 LSD SHOPS 5%- 19.63 JAN. 790.85 618.38 67.09 h2.63 291.66 117.75 321.33 813.68 580.63 7h.06 53.11 270.95 158.01 325.07 1%- 25.95 68 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XXI. FREQUENCY VALUE DE SS MS F : SS NS F L Tom 83 60331. 5356957 NONI'HS 6 25579 1.263 2131.50 H 8071177 1311580 23.03 as. SHOPS 5 27939 5588 2798.00 *4» 39631139 792688 135.61. a.» M x S 30 6739 225 112.50 M 3110601. 11353 1.91. H ERROR 1.2 77 2 22.5187 58M: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Fm TABLE XXII. __ FREQUENCY VALUE DF SS NS F : SS us F_ TOTAL 83 3111101 811361.15 MONI‘HS 6 59628 9938 19876 1. 865901 11.11317 1011.73 .3. SHOPS 5 229551 115910 91820 n 6605951 1321190 958.77 H M x s 30 51901 1730 31.60 4» 906698 30223 21.93 H ERROR 1.2 21 0.50 57865 1378 69 34% dd mmowa Ium @352 a 0.7mm Inn 3.4m lam $220: a 8&3 {no.mmw 38$ mm.mmnl 3.3m - 3.3..“ $2an $.m5 ucédlwqmuzoz 3.886 19.6me gamma: gamma afimmmm 2.3% 3.3.: 8.387 .289 3:26: wo.m~m moéomuw om.mmmm 3.0.2.0 3.35m $63M m~.mmom 00.8% wmfimm 20985.le 8.3m noémmmm 8.83 3.32. 3.2.3 $.33 3.3mm. mmémua 2.48m 28xo<78I§ Wags: .289 . .25. .83 .82 .86 (5.... - .63 52. 1 17 as: H as: ”:71 I 1 m x - a z o a 11 I . 7 . i :mgomfiwflawfifiw‘nfluoaafi 8.6 42 8.0 gum was: 8.” 3.6 .3 .36 mum mag: 84 lama 8.3 3.03 $4.6m 40.1mm $.31! 2.3 3.3 84%: 5226: {7 38H 35 .38 1 a1: 3: 3.: 32 «mm .18.... Size: 3.3 nnmm .85 54: ems «ms H8 oom 4m: zomuogJfi 9.0m m2: 80 49H m3 m3 3m can as 285318198 waglyfllmfloa . .zs. .uwd. .82 .86 - 1 .5m .53 1 BE. 4! i . a5” 3...: ”I I i 7w m 91: o a it I "41‘ 032.3»? 30815.. once you 3 05 no women Sausage no.3 ccooxowuncnzuiencnxomuluolpa: ‘{ figs—5 mafia Siam a: .6 8253mm .Hdan one 5? 333. 5. 36.309" one sewage: coon: no?» 330." Has no 3.3an .HHHNM ands 7O Hao.m Nom.mom NH.H om 4m momma 1. 2% 85.8 «8.st 1.4.33 km 03.3 8 a x a ma 93.0 moo.a ~mm.m **.H;.omo ows ooe.a o _a x < ** mo.mo Hom.m- Hom.m- t: 4~.«4a.a n-.~ m-.~ H mama: .x. h~.o~ Hm~.p- mmn.mwo.a s: o~.~oa.afl mm;.ma oom.oc o amaze: a: o~.~m~ «ma.wmo.a omm.mom.oa 1. mo.~oo.- m4~.m~ om4.hm~ ca macaw «238:: @232 NS .32. Z «86 $0: a... 9:. 083 o z x 4 .*_Hm.oo~ Hm~.5- mam.moo.a t. ma.~H mm:.na ooe.oo o mmgzo: .*.Hfi.wma flea.m- Hoa.m- mz om.~ m-.~ n-.u H M¢um< mnn.nom.a m»:.~m ma .H szupdumm 33¢... .8.“ 33.3.3.» no 3.536 05 29¢ cognac a.“ Gunman; 22.8. .239 £93 5 nofiuufia 33 98 H8 can an 45% H.349 6m @0535? .3 «.ng 71 TABLE XXIV. Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent stratified random samples of arrangement sales in the six "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. FREQUENCY OF ARRANGEKEM‘ SALES (NUMBER) N 0 N 'r H 3 £310? JULY AUG. sngr. ocr. Nov. DEC. JAN. :AVPmcE 23.1 3 15.00 18.00 8.00 20.00 18.50 21.50 28.50 17.93 8 25—1 : 1.1.50 £16.50 £16.50 56.00 £12.00 38.00 1.6.00 1.5.21 H 25-2 : 33.50 1.0.50 38.00 33.50 38.50 32.00 37.50 36.21 0 25-3 : 10.50 111.50 11.50 9.00 9.00 11.50 8.00 10.57 P h1—1 : 19.50 28.50 17.00 32.00 23.00 35.50 32.50 26.86 1378;: 3 16.00 16.00 19.50 111.00 1h.00 11.50 18.50 15.6h 51mm}: 22.67 _27.33 23.1.2 27.1.2 2h.17 25.00 27.83 25.170 1.30 MONI‘HS 5%- 1.76 1%- 2.33 LSD mops 5%- 1.62 1%- 2.15 VALQOF ARRANGEMEN!‘ SALES IN 0011.133 _ N 0 N 'r H s 1:310? JAN. :AVMGE JULY me. am. ocr. Nov. DEC. 23-1 2 96.22 126.63 16.00 176.11 152.66 170.52 198.25 137.91 3 25-1 : 1.21.13 397.87 1.58.70 502.61. 39h.10 305.50 1.96.69 1.25.23 ‘ a 25-2 3 290.50 277.36 296.27 288.23 339.81 2511.113 315.83 29b.63 025-3 2 50.00 79.21 66.’19 69.1.3 73.63 82.25 53.50 67.79 P 1.1-1: 11.2.63 205.88 115.25 207.57 158.08 231.13 223.38 183.b.1 8 78-1 3 125.07 103.38 1517.25 109.38 103.00 83.25 125.50 1111.83 AVERAGE 187.59 198.39 152.33 225.56 203.55 187.85 235.52 203.97 LSD mamas 5%- 15.1h 1%- 20.01 LSD SHOPS 5%- 1h.01 1%- 18.52 TABLE XXV. random samples of arrangement sales in the six "In-Jackson" retail 72 Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent stratified flower shops for the months of July 1957 through January 1958. FREQUENCY OF ARgéNGEMENT SALE§#(NUMBER) -__ H O N T H s :SHOP JULY AUG. SEH‘. ocr. Nov. DEC. JAN. “mos 38—1 3 Lb.50 69.00 55.00 5h.50 62.50 63.50 68.00 59.00 S 38-2 : hh.00 85.00 h3.50 50.50 h6.50 h2.50 h7.50 h5.6h H 38.3 x 2.50 b.00 7.00 6.50 8.50 5.50 h.00 5.h3 o 38-h : 8.50 7.50 6.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 3.50 5.50 P 38.5 3 19.50 1h.00 19.00 22.00 23.00 35.50 3h.00 23.86 Saggiglg 15.00 8.00 9.50 12.00 17.50 7.00 8.50 11.07 ‘AEERAGE 21.67 2h.58 23.h2 25.17 27.25 26.58 26.92‘__2S.08 LSD MONTHS 5%— 2.0L 1%. 2.69 LSD SHOPS 5%- 1.90 1%- 2.51 VALUE OF ARRANGEMENT SALES IN DOIIARS 38—1 38-2 38q3 : 38-h : 38-5 3 S 38-6 3 fififiTfifT;’ AVERAGE S H O P JUL! 30h.36 280.20 12.50 21.25 105.06 102.25 137.60 M O :N ;QJ_H_ S 100. h67.35 296.03 18.50 38.75 86.00 355.00 160.27 SEPT. h01.83 325.80 h1.81 39.75 93.55 61.75 159.91 LSD MONrHS 5%— 13.56 1%- 17.92 oor. 383.33 330.60 h2.9h 29.13 117.36 88.00 16h.56 Nov. 396.06 279.58 32.13 3h.25 12h.63 138.25 167.h8 DEC. h28.92 310.70 33.50 29.62 213.53 51.00 116.21 177g17 : :SHOP : A_JAN. :AVERAGE h7h.86 322.53 h08.10 306.h9 1h.h0 18.13 180.72 56.00 27.97 27.98 131.55 78.32 163.h0 __.- LSD SHOPS 55- 12.55 1%- 16.59 73 ANALYSIS OF VARIAICE FOR TABLE XXIV. FREQUENpY VALUE DF as NS F SS as F TOTAL 83 11.360 1.398856 MONTHS 6 322 53.67 5.62 a 26830 1.1472 6.37 a.» SHOPS 5 12356 21.71.20 258.76 a 1238353 21.7671 352.80 a M x S 30 1281 12.70 Mn H 101.200 3103 11.95 am ERROR D2 1.01 9.55 291.73 702 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE m. FREQUENCY VALUE DF SS HS F 38 NS F TOTAL 83 38030 1865571: MONI‘HS 6 300 50 3.89 a 12912 2152 3.82 «a. SHOPS 5 35569 71111 553.19 H 1753999 350800 623.09 «M» N x S 30 1621 5h 24.20 a 75031; 2501 11.111: *l- ERROR 1.2 51.0 12.86 23629 563 1h» 7 2:. .3 «.3 tum 35. 8A 2.9 J: 3.3 JR 9320: BA 8.8a $.83 11 no.3." 3.3a 8.3a $35 3&2 8.33 84%: 55.8: 3338 333; 8.39 2&3: R484 Quota: 3.82 3.83 3.8g. gazes 3.8a 8.31.3 3.3.8 «343.. 2.383 832.3 3.33 3.33 3:33 6365...: RJGN 3.3.2..“ mméwmm floamww 3.3.3 mcooog .3233 3.88 wotnmmfl gag-salsa 85m»: .289 . .25. .86 .8: .8o .33 .63 be. a a so: . as: .1: - m x a z o a u u 93.86 E 8.3 §.§< 8 Eng .36 J: duo .3 mg 84 SA .3 :4 JR «.58: 84 I33 3.3 2.3 2.3 3.137! 3.3 3.3 5.3 853. 55.8: 33 1 Re 11 13. 7 So Re 1&3 136 «m 28H Size: 8.3 83 3n .3 En «on SN 3... o3 23373 3.3 .53 :3 8m 03 9% 3 3m «3 283133838 meals: .22. . .52. .&m .8: .8o .58 .2: t 52. 35m 35m1111 11-1 -MTm a z o 4.1 ‘ $3835 955. Eézéfi mo 8%:an .5 13 EUR :33. 5" voices." Pun sewage»: coon! no? wagons-Bud us 3.3an 88... 832:3. .58 Son 2 25 no no.3 5.238.. ooh. .eofioog.l.oooxoo?uo$8. 45 “an: 7S «3 «3.0... 2.3 30 :0 000% I. 3.: $03 :333 1. «0.: 2.0: «003 8 a x m I. 030: 30.0 30.00 02 3.0 00.0 0: 0 a a < 1. 00.3 :13 2100 .3. 8.0 004d 54 H was: I. 3.0 Rim 000.0n .1. :30 3.3 :3 0 02202 1 5.2.: 33.00... «3.80.... 1 00.3: 03300.: 3.3.: 0: 2000 5309.0 8me SH .32. E .806 $0.0 3:03.” 00.0 0: 0 z x 4 02 2.0 Rim 000.00 I. 00.: ~93 :R 0 0520: 02 00.m 5100 5.20... a. 00.2 0043 a a map: 03.00: m3 9 .2000 H 0008 a a. 8 . m 0: mm .B a0q«> . H0z00aumh .52“ 032. fi 030880 38 05 an 09. >09 833. .80 08523 no 32253 on» Eh 02680 3 3.538 35. .25 80:. 80 005520 .8 052:2: TABLE XXVI I. 76 Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent aystematic samples of arrangement sales in the 31x "Out-of-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 and January 1958. 9122:00me 01“ ARRANGEMENT SAIES LNUMBER) HONTHS :SHOP JULY AUG. ssm'. ocr. Nov. 0100. JAN. :AvaGE 23—1 3 17.50 17.50 111.00 19.50 21.50 16.50 25.50 19.11. 3 25-1 3 50.50 52.00 1.0.50 52.50 85.00 1.0.00 hh.oo 1.6.36 H 25-2 3 29.50 36.50 32.00 30.00 39.00 30.50 28.50 32.29 0 25.3 3 6.00 7.50 9.50 11.50 12.50 11.50 9.00 9.61. P111-«1 : 21.00 28.00 22.00 29.50 27.50 3h.oo 31.00 27.57 S 78.1 2 16.00 21.00 11.50 12.00 111.50 12.00 19.50 15.61; AVERAGE 23.1.2 27.08 22.03 25.83 26.67 21..h2 26.25 25.11 Lsnuom'ns 5%- 2.12 1:;- 2.80 LSD SHOPS 5%-1.9h 1%- 2.56 VALUE 0? ARRANcmsNr SALES IN DOLLARS N 0 N 'r H s fl 5802 _9 JULY A00. SEPI'. 001'. Nov. DEC.- JAN. :AvaGE 23-1 3 122.25 1h?.h6 108.07 118.33 173.66 166.38 216.80 15h.71 3 25—1 s 1.96.13 1158.75 381.00 509.02 1.72.38 3611.38 1.18.57 1.12.89 H 25-2 8 228.75 300.93 27h.10 26b.00 291.00 167.30 213.79 262.90 0 25—3 : 3h.95 h8.00 71.00 78.50 85.00 82.75 86.50 69.67 Pia-1 : 11.2.50 212.88 1517.75 186.22 293.21 25h.62 235.90 197.15 S 78.1 : 105.91. 152.50 121.50 82.00 9h.00 78.25 155.55 112.82 Amm 188.h2 220.09 185.07 211.51 218.27 202.28 221.18 206.69 LSD MONI‘HS 5%— 16.82 1%— 22.21. LSD $8093 5%- 15.57 1%- 20.59 77 TABLE XXVIII. Average frequency and value of two 10 per cent systanatic smnples of arrangement sales in the six ”In-Jackson" retail flower shops for the months of July 1957 through Jamary 1958. FRWCY OF ARRANCE‘MENI‘ SALES (NUMBER) u 0 N 'r H s ;SHOP JUL! AUG. SEPI‘. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. :AVERAGE 38.1 x 53.00 62.50 5h.oo 68.00 57.00 63.00 61.50 59.86 s 38—2 8 1.1.00 1.9.50 36.00 3h.50 1.6.00 1.2.00 1.5.50 1.2.07 H 38.3 s 2.50 3.50 8.00 6.00 17.50 5.50 3.50 17.21 0 38-h : 7.00 5.50 2.00 5.00 h.00 17.50 3.00 17.113 P 38.5 : 18.50 18.00 17.50 25.00 21.50 26.50 33.50 22.93 S 38.6 : 13.00 9.00 15.50 13.50 11.00 10.50 10.50 11.86 AVERAGE 22.50 2h.67 21.50 25.33 2h.00 25.33 26.25 28.23 LSD N0Nrns 5%- 2.0u 1%- 2.69 LSD SHOPS 5%- 1.90 1%- 2.51 VALUE OF ARRANGmmr SALES 1N. poLLARS _ M 0 N T H s ;SHOP JULY AUG. _§EPr. ocr. NOV. DEC. ¢ gAN. :Amm 38-1 : 372.86 1718.07 387.80 515.90 39h.00 1137.99 1131.92 1:22.60 S38--2 : 299.25 305.18 259.38 2140.78 297.78 299.63 312.09 287.73 H38.3 : 25.87 22.25 20.03 32.67 19.50 25.98 15.75 21.72 0 38-h : 33.33 32.75 18.57 25.13 20.00 23.71; 17.00 23.81 P38--5 : 116.50 103.80 119.93 157.15 168.83 130.53 199.63 1142.31. _S_38-6 : 105.75 51.50 112.5). 88.38 81.00 7h.75 68.25 83.11 {33% 157.19 155.59 152.111 176.67 163.52 165.83 178.11 163.56 LSD MONI‘HS 5%- 22.9h 1%- 30.32 LSD SHOPS 5%- 21.23 1%- 28.07 78 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABIE XXVII. _ FREQUENCY VALUE DF ~SS MS F SS MS F TOTAL 83 13958 1389101 MONTHS 6 208 141.33 3.03 A 16811 2735 3.15 at SHOPS 5 12228 211145.60 179.30 «u 1250581 250116 288.15 a.» M x S 30 909 30.30 2.22 a 856111 2855 3.29 a.» ERROR 112 573 13.61: 361168 868 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE xxvnI. FREQUENCY VALUE 1)? 35 NS F 88 NS F TOTAL 83 37255 19309514 MONTHS 6 207 311.50 2.69 i- 6179 1030 0.6h NS SHOPS 5 35h92 7098.170 5514.13 u 1807100 3617420 2211.35 A» M x S 30 1018 33.93 2.65 41* 50019 1667 1.03 NS ERROR h2 535 _ 12.81 67656 1611 79 no.3“ Am.” 84. lam g a Hméa Ifin mus: tum 9320: an 133mg 3.33 843 3.93 8.53 433.9: 37.83 3.3: 8§< 55291 3.8mm 2.37% 3&3 3.33 33331: 3.23 3.83 3.53 .289 33,5: 3&3 8.8.9 3.38 3.33 8.83 8.23 3.33 8.83 3.83 SEEH $.83 18.23: 3.433 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.83 8.33 8.33 263378.48 8E4. .222. . .24.. .85 AB: .So .33 .84 SE. 7 33“ 3% ”I m z a midi a 1 9348 3 65315262434 .3 flag mo; J? 2.6 lam 9.5? 8A 184 nun 34 1mm maze: 9.3 3.3 3.3 8.3 3.3 184.3 3.31. 8.3 3.3 8332 SEE: 1 .33 68 am as .3 3m 36 1:143 38.1. 55% 3.3 38 3m Son 03 Son Q3 63 2.3 2835.4: 3.3 83 3m «3 8m 03 m3 3m 33 6337,6356 8.25.1138“. . .23. . 8a IV .82 . .Bo . Eu .2: HE. 334 m an: m a m a z o a [7 $335 was.” gzéfi no wuowmaafi .HHHSNK and HS weapon. 5" voice?" 0.8 sumac: coon: nod! £83593. no 00.333 032.529 300 .89 o." 05 no «.33 32.2380 no.8 acooxounncHellzcoaxoouugau .KE mam: 80 63: 3432 3.9 313 .8 SE .1. .3; H213 8633 1. 3.3 ~12 3m: 8 a x m mz 3.6 Sm 811m 2 2.6 8.2 8 m a u < I. 8.8 312. 312. mz 3.3 8.3 3... H 982 .. 3.3 @213 63.3 . 1. 23 8.3 3m o 628: 1. 8.23 221mg 36.33.». 1. 2.63 8.32.... 813 2 391m 8181M 313 SH 3.8.1. 5 .86 2.3 81m 8.3 8 o a n « «2 8.3 23.3 63.3 .. 3.6 3.3 m3 6 $an 2. 2.8 312. 312. ma 8% 8.3 «n a 98: 33.8” :3 3 3.8.1. H .186 .— 9 mm a m: 8 B 1 mpg; wozmjsdumm .NHNN 33am. a." 6025»th 33 in HUS and HHS Imanfia how 0023.2!» no 3.6.333 on» gum wok—Eco 3" nwuhdacd n33. .HB Manda. 8h modem<> ho mHmHA . nozmamumm .55 622. 5 E538 3% as do? 9:. do. .385 .8» 86:32» 8 36328 on... 8.: 85.88 3 83.388 85. ESE SE. m8 823:; 8 88.224 86 00.3 IRA 9.3” lam ”coma: ozHgmadm mdow IRA moon Imm fine—ENE Dana; «0.0m IE” "5.5 1&0 98.20: I am...— an; «3.0.. nu." maom lam mmazg I a Hozmbgmm «0.02 3.03 0.120 8.84 93.3 90.0% .2303 0min 555.. 50.2% 8.302: «0.8:: n0.§o- 2:33.” 00.20.: 00.2.? «0.022 8.0002 32. 50.20: 8.0% 8.303 8.804 3.300. 8.2.5 «0.000: 3.030 0.0.83 2.40am Sagan atom... a 0:43 $28040 $.82 0m.m~0~. 00.000: 00.30: 8.2.3 00.33 00.33 8.363% no.8: 3.0020 3.0000 8.800 8285 3.0000 9.300 3.053 2.800 58250 E 0558 E 8.20 035 a: .8 an; 3.00 240 00.00 5A0 $.00 00:3 #60 «QR nosE< 50.5% ad: 9:: 030 23 can 80” - 3: 3.: 0:2. 5:an 9.00 0H3 80 40: «00 000 30 000 05 Susanna thorn-nag $.00 85 $0 an 000 050 20 80 8: 3.3563 $.00 «00: 30 n0: «.0 R0 90 80 03 :85: ¢ , -l‘ E mug: .289 . :3. .85 .5. .So .50 .2: .52. a a 80.8. . 8:5 . m m a a o a 38:0 . a . Afimapzv n56 flmfim a: .8 n2? .3 .05 H5”: «an .333. 5 03.33.. 0.8 390.85. 60.30 :30." find you 0239: .80 00.323 £80 non 0H 25 :o 03.3 33.30.30 60:00.: manna...“ 23.3 snooxoafiluolpflon on.» you .HHHg Nada. 87 . luvlllll a!“ .fifihurnlw. 4:4...— .1.r|l\!!i.1: d 8H momfi sumo; .3068 8.3 so; t. 5...... $58.3 30.83; .1 SA 243 8%: o... a x 5 2 RA 3:30..“ 33mg a: 3.0 $2 m3 2 a N 8 ma $6 3.30% 33. 3 98.0 om.m 3 N Em: g 1 ~33 8.3.3.; H8323 t. 5.0% 82.0.3 48...; o maze: 1. fififi 8§N6$ «2.319 1. $42 353$ 21% ma 82m 03.30.: mmcfifi Rm .292. S .53» m~.§o.m 5km NEH m3 3 a x 8 a. San 3.208% H848; x. 3.8m 2.2.0.2” 48.2. o 2:22. mz 36 8.304 2N; mz 2.0 om.m 3 m Em: 8&3 ELSQJ onus: on .289 H .506 m 9 mm a m: mm .5 1 n=q<> uozmpwumm @393. 89C 33.8., Mo 35.3.8 95 5.3 umfiflou 3" 333d 35. .289 «28. 5 82393 38 in a n3 ES .fi .55 mum: mom nozfimsw .8 33.25. 88 2.2” IRA mnown 4m 80mg: ozHHmme a: J: :4 .mm 225 35.5 40.0H .ua mm.~a .mm 9320: I a a8<> and la." owoa lum 9.5% I emu 328655 2.3m mafia :35 Ebb.” 3&2 3.0mm 3.0mm 8&8 15554 5522 .8538 Hm.$a £4.38 938d 8.3.: 8.8a: $.82 $.88 is... 5..an Edam moéomfi Ramon 8.3% memosm $.33 wafimom 8.8mm cmsflh 8.33.86 Roxana? mméwm 2.638 3.3% $283 2.03m 3.53 2.3»? 2.3mm 3.me 8.253% mwémm 2.3mm“ mazfimm 3.3:. fififih 44.8mm 8.3mm .383 2.33 Beam E mace 5 mafia .HQE a3 .8 ES; 2.3 2.43 mmfifi 3.6 3.3 Sam 3.3 8.3 855... SmEoz H22 «RN a3 a? 3% a3 .83 8.: $.89 Exes: 8.3 RR 5. 5: 3.. «3. H8 8m am: BEEEE £23qu.. 2:3 8% o: .23 m2. 9:. «8 8m :3 0H§§m €36 mom :2. 83 com 3. 3o 3m 8: SEE E 8:34. .28... . .23. .88 so: .80 .Emm .2: 52. a « 8mg . 83m: . m x a z o a E . $5.55 93 gig a: .6 32$an .55" U5 HHN «Ha moans. 5.. cuckoo?“ 0.3 nomuuo>< 30.3 sconxoannaH: c5 .3.“ .33 .338 ad. you 3:35 hon 3.353 £80 .89 OH 25 no 823 coaakmnsoo 352.. 93.358 SEN Mam: 89 00.00.... 000.000 00.00 000.0 00. 000E 1. 00.00 00.00030 000.0010 1 00.00 00.000: 03.000 00 a x 00 02 3.0 00.0010 00.00 02 3.0 00.0" 0.: 00 a 0 =0 0.. 00.0 00.00.} 000.0 02 00.0 00.00 00 0 EB. 00050 1. 9.000 00.00102 000.000.0 1. 00.000: 8.0.3.00 000.000 0 00.20: 0* 00.000 00.400.000.H 000.000.00 ** 0:.00m.0 00.000.00 400.000 00 .00000 0003.00.00 000.30; 000 .2000 E 00000 00.0010 08.00 00.00 0.: 0H 2 x 8 .0. 00.20 00.00105 02600.0 3. 00000.0 00.93.00 000.000 0 00020: 02 00.0 00.8.0.0 000.0 02 00.0 00....0 00 0 00.0: 3050 040.000 000.000 00 .2000. H086 ll... :FJdiQ fiwmmiiJiu--U»0 19 :flvwm 00 - 11 t 000<1>114 . Ari 0020002001111 1. 4509 0300 5 08:00.80 300 05. Has. 0:0 .8. .20 madame gum 00930.35. no 0.3.3.33 0:» 50.5 Uo>finvv a.“ 9.35.308 32.3. Jag mamfiw mom muzfiib ho Hummus: 9O 23m IRH om; Ium maomhw: 025843 .31: IRA QNJH lmm $320: I an H545, 84 J: 2.6 Am 80mg 25.3.... mm; J: 34 Am 9:5: .. n8 wofiamfi $68 24.8 853 $43 $33 mméma mm.8~ 85? 85B: 5520: 5&on :~.$~m Sand. 34:3 $.38. 3.88 .363. 3.2% .289 SmEo: 8.8... 3.035 3.85 2.3.3 8.3mm $.28 3.2.8 2333 isofi 8.2583 £55.25. $68 5.329 3.43... fiéufi 5.33. 2.23 40.82 8.38 8.39.. 0225.56 ~m.no~ -.nma~a m~.o~m~ 4H.4m- mm.~44~ mo.oo- H¢.H-~ No.omm~ mo.am- soaz< 039nm :gmv—OdfilflH: £9. .HOH no.3» #:9505000 you @2390 .39 «manna» £80 awn OH or» no woman cognac-.0 020.2: 05368 .HBDR mama. 93 0058.0 000.000 00.00 000.0 000 000.00 .0. 00.0 00.000.0 000.000 .0. 00.0 00.00 000.0 00 a 0 00 02 00.0 00.000 000.0 02 00.0 00.00 000 00 a 0 .0 02 00.0 00.000 000 mz 00.0 00.00 00 .0 0.00.. 000020 .0. 0.10 00.000... 000.00 .0. 00.0 8.000 .000 0 00020.. .1. 00.000 8.000.000 000.000.0 .0. 00.000 00000.0 000.000 00 00000 000.000.0 000.000 000 0:00 00 00000 00.000 000.0 00.00 000 00 a 0 8 .0. 00.0 00.0003 000.00 .0. 00.00 00.000 000 0 00.0.20: 0.. 00.0 00.000 000 00 00.0 00.00 00 0 0.00: 0.0050 000.00 000 00 00.8.0 0 .0006 .0 0: 00 I0I III 0: I I 00 .00 10.00.; I 002000000 .0300. 0000.0 :0 030320 300. 0800000 05. 000000 .800 £33.09 80.3 00935 no 900353 9.3 £93 vobfihov 0.“ 0.09%? 00:9 .bexN Humans. mom HB .000 9855: 921 TABLE XXXVII. Comparison of sample and population values in five cases of frequencies of 10 in each of the three 10 per cent sampling methods. 10 PER CENT SAMPm VALUES 8 8 SANPLING METHODS : wr : LOT W S! x : RANDOM sysrm'rxc SYSTEMATIC 3 TOTAL : AVERAGE 1 62.00 52.50 71.50 186.00 62.00 L 2 67.00 80.50 52.h6 199.96 66.65 O 3 71.00 70.00 63.25 20h.25 68.08 '1' 1. 1111.05 77.50 79.00 200.55 66.85 S 5 76.50 80.50 68.00 225.00 75.00 SAMPIE TOTAL 320.55 361.00 3311.21 1015.76 AVERAGE 61011 72.20 66.81. 67.72 LSD SAMPLING MEI‘HODS 5%- 1O.96 1%- 15.21 POPUIATION VAIUES'" 3 8 SANPLING METHODS : nor 2 LOT W x : RANDOM SYsrmA'rIc srerMATIc : Tom. 3 AVERAGE 1 61.0.89 737.86 813.19 2191.91. 730.65 L 2 728.2b 6h0.89 583.61 1952.7h 650.91 O 3 667.9h 733.60 11h5.79 25h7.33 8h9.11 'r b 255.90 711.36 910.35 1877.61 625.87 S 5 98h.25 687.20 787.00 2b58.b5 819.h8 SAMPLE TOTAL 3277.22 3510.91 1.239.911 11028.07 LE AVERACE 655.111: 702.18 8147.99 735.20 LSD SAMPLING NErHODS 5%. 185.18 1%- 257.00 at Ecfi corresponds to the sample value in the same position above. 95 I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XXXVII. 10 PER CENT SAMPLE VALUES DF 53 us F Tom 1h 1735 SAMPLES 2' 169 814.5 0.65 NS mm 12 1566 130.5 POPULATION VALUES DF 55 as F TOTAL 11 5118005 SAMPLES 2 100862 50131 1.35 NS ERROR 12 111171143 37262 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE max. 10 PER cm SAMPLE VALUE“: DF‘ 33 us I" 101111. In 3969 SAMPLES 2 371 185.50 0.62 NS mm 12 3598 299.83 29301111011 VALUES _ DF 35 15 F TOTAL 111 612131: SAMPLES 2 119660 59830.0 1.16 NS ERROR 12 h92h7h 11039.5 96 TABLE XXXVIII. Comparison of population values divided by 10 and sample values of the three 10 per cent sampling methods at a frequency level of 10. These values are taken from Table XXXVII. 3W SAMPLING METHODS :POPUIATIONzPOPUIATION IED W: : RANDOM SYSTEMTIC SYSI'EMATIC 3 TOTALS : AVERAGES _ 5mm: 320.55 361.00 3311.21 1015.76 67.72 FOR/10 327.72 351.09 123.99 1102.80 73.52 SAMPLE TOTAL 618.27 _ 712.09 758.20 1-- 2118.56 m ”3mm ""“ ' AvaGE 611.332 71.21 75.82 70.62 LSD SAMPLE-POP S%— 8.38 1%— 11.30 LSD SAMPLE 5%— 10.27 1%- 13.8h ANALYSIS OF lARyncE FOR TABLE xxngII. -__ fl DF 33 - MS “-1 F , TOTAL 29 71169 SAMPLE-POPUIA'I'ION 1 253 253 1.00 NS SAMPLES 2 609 305 1.21 NS S-P x s 2 570 285 1.13 NS ERRCB 2h 6037 252 97 TABLE XXIII. Comparison of sample and pOpulation values in five cases of frequencies of 20 in each of the three 10 per cent sampling methods. 10 PER GENT SAANPLI; VALUES ’ SAMPLING METHODS ; LOT ; LOT W “IN-SHOW : : RANDOM SYSTEAATIG SYSTgTATIc 3 TOTAL : AVERAGE 1 127.00 126.01 112.00 395.c 131.68 L 2 151.00 172.81 127.00 153.81 151.28 0 3 115.75 150.50 153.50 119.75 139.92 T 1 113.12 110.75 111.50 395.67 131.89 s 5 119.83 125.18 132.25 377.56 125.85 SAMPLE TOTAL 660.00 _- ‘ 315.61 666.25 2011.86 __ mTPL AvaGE 132.00 113.12 133.25 _136.13 _% LSD SAMPLING mnoDS 5%- 16.60 1%. 23.01 POPULATION VALUES" 3 2 SAMPLING METHODS : LOT : DOT W x : __RANDON SYSI‘EMAT IC SYSI‘EMATIC : TOTAL : AVERAGE __ 1 1112.70 1312.76 1112.70 1198.16 1399.39 L 0 2 1156.13 1539.91 1390.75 1386.79 1162.26 T 3 1185.55 1295.61 1156.13 3937.32 1312.11 1 705.83 1063.95 1310.11 3110.19 1036.73 S 5 1139.31 1297.50 1392.73 3829.51 1276.51 SAMPLE TOTAL 5229.52 6509.76 7022.72 19162.00 H AVERAGE 1185.90 1301.35A 1101.51 _1297.17 _ LSD SAMPLING METHODS 55L 191.31 1%- 269.72 * E05 corresponds to the sample value in the same position above. 98 TABLE XL. Comparison of population values divided by 10 and sample values of the three 10 per cent sampling methods at a frequency level of 20. These values are taken from Table XXXIX. SAMPLING METHODS m : SAMPLE : BARBIE: : POPULATION: POPULATION RANDOM SYSTEMATIC SYSTEMATIC : TOTALS : AVERAGES __ SAMPLE 660.00 715.61 666.25 2011.86 136.13 POP/10 592.95 650.98 702.27 1916.20 129.75 SAMPLE TOTAL 1252.95 1366.59 1368.52 3988.06 _ ”SAMPLE ‘ AVERAGE 125.30 136.66 136.85 132.91 LSD SAMPLE-P0P 5%- 9.91 1%- 13.39 LSD SAMPLE 5%- 7.26 17» 16.13 ANALYSIS OF VARIATCE FOR TABLE XL. DF _ SS MS I" _ TOTAL 29 10395 SAMPIE-POPUIAT LON 1 305 305 0.86 NS SAMPLES 2 876 138 1.23 NS S-P x S 2 692 316 0.97 NS m 21 8522 355 TABLE XLI. Comparison of sample and population values in five cases of 99 frequmcies of 30 in each of the three 10 per cent sampling methods. 10 PER CENT SAMPLES VALUE§__ SAMPLING METHODS : DOT : LOT RANDOM SYSTEMIC SYSTEMATIC TOTAL 3 AVERAGE 1 119.38 225.00 213.20 587.58 195.86 L 2 156.13 275.60 221.00 652.73 217.58 0 3 226.71 287.31 213.00 727.05 212.35 T 1 205.75 238.50 232.60 676.85 225.62 S 5 211.00 116.75 216.50 601.25 201.12 $1)? 918.97 1173.19 3156.30 3218.16 AVERAGE 183.79 231.61 231.26 216.56 LSD SAMPLING METHODS 5%- 10.09 1%- 55.61 POPULATION VAHJES" SAMPLING METHODS : LOT : LOT RANDOM SYSTEMATIC 'SYSTESMOLTIC : TOTAL : AVERAGE___ 1 2020.11 2511.75 2555.11 7120.00 2373.33 L 2 2317.11 2758.13 1893.60 6999.11 2333.05 0 3 2669.55 2728.18 2072.93 7170.66 2190.22 T 1 2651.01 2072.93 2072.93 6796.87 2265.62 S 5 2588.19 1693.08 2281.56 6563.13 2187.71 SAMPLE TOTAL 12276.57 11797.07 10876.16 31919.80 AVERAGE 2155.31 2359.11 2175.23 2329.99 LSD SAMPLING METHODS 5%- 329.32 1%- 157.06 a fish corresponds to the sample value in the same position above. 100 ANALXSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XLI. 10 PER CENT SAMPLE VALUES DP SS___ HS F TOTAL 11 29161 SAMPLE 2 8116 1058 2.31 NS ERROR 12 21018 1751 POPULATION VALUE DF 35 MS F TOTAL 11 1616855 SAMPLES 2 202610 101305 0.86 NS ERROR 12 1111215 117851 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XLIII. 10 PE CENT SAMPLE VALUES DI" SS MS F __y TOTAL 11 30177 SAMPLE 2 3869 1935 0.88 NS ERROR 12 26218 2187 POPULATION VALUE . DF SS MS F TOTAL 11 5196379 SAMPLES 2 276010 138020 0.31 NS ERROR 12 1920339 110028 101 TABLE XIII. Comparison 01' population values divided by 10 and sample values of the three 10 per cent sampling methods at a frequency level of 30. These values are taken from Table XLI. :W SAMPLING METHODS :POPULATIONzPOPULATIm fiRATIFIED ”IN-SHOP" : : RANDOM SYSTEMATIC SYSTEMATIC : TOTALS : AVERACES SAMPLE 918.97 1173.19 1156.30 3218.16 216.56 POP/10 1227.66 1179.70 1087.62 3191.98 233.00 SAMPLE TOTAL 2116.63 2352.89 2213.92 6713.11 W AVERAGE 211.66 235.29 221.39 221.78 LSD SAMPLE-P0P 5%- 20.23 1%- 27.26 LSD SAMPLE 5%- 21.71 1%- 33.35 Ams OF VARIAME FOR TABLE XLII. DP SS HS F TOTAL 29 17358 SAMPLE-PORTLATION 1 2026 2026 1.38 NS SAMPLES 2 2130 1065 0.73 NS S-P x S 2 8012 1006 2.73 NS ERROR 21 35190 1166 102 TABLE XLIII. Comparison of sample an! population values in five cases of frequencies of 10 in each of the three 10 per cent sampling methods. IOPEICEITSAIPHSVAIHES 8 SAMPLING METHODS : LOT : LOT m “IN-5&0?” : : RANDOM SYSTEMATIC SYSTEMATIC : TOTAL : AVERAGE 1 319.53 336.70 387.50 1013.73 317.91 L 2 361.39 311.00 271.18 916.57 315.52 0 3 332.83 271.50 221.69 829.02 276.31 T 1 262.35 300.95 257.07 820.37 273.16 s 5 317.99 216.22 301.08 895.29 298.13 SAMPLE TOTAL _ 1621.09 1169.37 1111.52 1531.98 P AVERAGFLA 321.82 293.87 288.30 302.33 LSD SAMPLING METHODS 5%- 11.85 1%. 62.25 POPULATION VALUES* 8 3 SAMPLING METHODS : LOT 3 LOT RAT I SHO : : RANDCM SYSTEMATIC SYSTEMATIC : TOTAL 2 AVERAGE _ L 1 2555.11 2555.11 3633.16 8713.71 2911.58 2 3101.36 2702.09 3165.10 9271.55 3090.52 0 3 2728.18 3007.57 2229.08 7961.83 2651.91 T 1 3367.59 1175.63 2917.11 10160.36 3186.79 3 5 1175.63 2229.08 3013.61 9118.35 3139.15 SAMPLE TOTAL 16230.90 11669.51 11958.12 15858.83 mm AVELAGE 3216.18 2933.90 2991.68 3057.26 LSD SAMPLING METHODS 5%- 611.26 1%- 852.52 » Eacfi corresponds to the sample value in the same position above. 103 TABLE XLIV. Comparison of population values divided by" 13 and sample values,of the three 10 per Cent. sampling methods at a frequency level of 10. These values are taken from Table XLIII. :SAMPLE- :SANFE SAMPLING METHODS :POPUIATIONsPOPUIATION mm!) WIN-3110 : : RANDOM SYSTEMATIC SYSTEMATIC : TOTALS : AVERAGES SAMPLE 1621.09 1169.37 1111.52 1531.98 302.33 POP/10 1623.09 1166.95 1195.81 1585.88 305.73 SAMPLE TOTAL 3217.18 2936.32 2937.36 9120.86 SAM'PLE' AVERAGE 321.72 293 .63 . 293.71 . 301.03 LSD SAMPLE-POP 5%- 33.99 1%- 15.80 LSD SAMPLE 5%- 11.61 1%- 56.11 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABIE XLIV. DF 33 IS F TOTAL 29 82169 SAMPLE-POPUIATION l 88 88 0.02‘ NS SAMPLES 2 6121 3211 0.77 NS S—P X S 2' 209 105 0.03 NS ERROR 21 75151 1111 TABLE XLV. 101 Comparison of sample and population values in five cases Of frequencies of 50 in each of the three 10 per cent sampling methods. 10 PER CENT SAMPLES VALUES SAMPLING METHODS ; LOT ; DOT m 1 z : RANDOM SYSTEMATIC SYSTEMATIC : TOTAL : AVERAGE 1 281.12 113.59 170.50 1168.21 389.10 L o 2 177.16 178.81 307.95 961.25 321.12 3 182.18 351.69 109.05 913.22 311.11 T 1 263.53 377.80 110.15 1051.18 350.19 s 5 381.50 306.35 105.17 1093.02 361.31 SAMPLE: TOTAL 1289.09 1928.27 2002.82 5220.18 m AVERAGE 257.82 385.65 100.56 318.01 LSD SAMPLING METHODS 5%- 67.11 15- 93.18 POPULATION VALUES." 3 : SAMPLING METHODS : LOT 2 LOT 8 3 RANDOM SYSTmATIC SYSTEMATIC : TOTAL : AVERAGE 1 2576.12 1293.97 1519.20 11119.29 3806.13 L 2 2395.20 1969.31 2999.20 10363.71 3151.57 0 3 2201.36 3367.59 1521.80 10096.75 3365.58 T 1 2201.36 3860.77 1108.83 10173.96 3391.32 3 5 3601.53 3007.57 1291.13 10903.23 3631.11 SAMPLE: TOTAL 12981.57 19199.21 20173.16 52956.91 SAM' 'PTE‘" AVERACE 2596.91 3899.81 1091.63 3530.16 LSD SAMPLING MEI‘IDDS 5%- 612.02 1%- 891.05 at 505 corresponds to the sample value in the same position above. 105 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XLV. 10 PER CEM‘ SAMPLE VALUES DF 83 MS F TOTAL 11 120315 SAMPLES 2 61658 30829 6.29 a. ERROR 12 58777 1898 POPULATION VALUES DF SS Ms F TOTAL 11 12006312 SAMPLES 2 6631206 3315603 7.10 w ERROR 12 5375136 117928 1.06 TABLE XLVI. Comparison of powlation values divided by 10 and sample values of the three 10 per cent sampling methods at a frequency level of 50. These values are taken from Table XLV. : W SAMPLING METHODS :POPULATION:P0PULATION W - O : : RANDOM SYSTEMATIC SYSTETATIC : TOTALS : AVERAGES SAMPLE 1289.09 1928.27 2002.82 5220.18 381.01 POP/10 1298.16 1919.92 2017.31 5295.69 353.05 SAMPLE TOTAL 2587.55 3878.19 1050.13 10515.87 AVERAGE 258.76 387.82 105.01 350.53 LSD SAMPLE-P0P 5%- 36.16 1%- 18.73 LSD SAMPLE 5%- 11.27 1%- 59.67 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XLVI. DF SS I IS F TOTAL 29 210601 SAMPIE-POHJIAT ION 1 193 193 0.01 NS SAMPLES 2 127816 63908 13.63 «A» S—P x s 2 61 32 0.007 Ns ERROR 21 112528 1689 107 TABLE XLVII. Analysis of the five cases of a frequency of 10 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling method column in Table XLGLVII. WA t A“ z 3 L O T S _: INDIV. : INDIV. 1 2 3 1 5 : TOTAL 1 AVERAGE I 7.00 7.00 5.50 7.00 8.50 35.00 7.00 N 6.50 6.00 6.00 3.50 5.00 27.00 5.10 D 5.00 1.00 3.50 6.00 5.00 23.50 1.70 I O 10.00 2.16 5.00 5.00 5.00 27.16 5.19 v R 3.00 3.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 31.00 6.80 I D 5.00 1.00 2.00 20.00 5.00 36.00 7.20 D E 9.00 7.00 10.00 7.50 1.00 37.50 7.50 U R 10.00 7.50 5.00 10.00 7.50 10.00 8.00 A S 5.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 27.00 5.10 L 11.00 5.50 10.25 5.00 15.00 16.75 9.35 LOT TOTAL 71:50 52.16 63.25 79.00 68.00 331.21 1?va - 7.15 5.25 6.33 7.90 6.80 __6.68 LSD LOTS 5%- 2.05 11- 2.73 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FQILTABLB xLVII. _ DF A __§S MS F w TOTAL 19 507 101's 1 39 9.75 0.914 NS INDIVIDUALS 9 93 1.03 0.10 NS ERROR 36 375 10.12 108 TABLE XLVIII. Commrison of the five cases of a frequency of 10 which appear in the ”In-Shop" systanatic sampling column in Table XXXVII with the corresponiing population values divided by 10. I. o E s “M 1 2 3 1 5 3 TOTAL : AVERAGE SAMPLE 71.50 52.16 63.25 79.00 68.00 331.21 66.81 POP/10 81.32 58.36 111.58 91.01 78.70 121.00 81.80 LOT TOTAL 152.82 110.82 177.83 170.01 116.70 758.21 $168 76.11 55.11 88.92 85.02 73.35 75.81 LSD SAMPLE-POP 5%- 13.16 1%- 19.31 LSD LOTS 55- 21.29 1%- 30.58 ANALYSIS OF VARIATCE FOR TABLE XLVIVII DF SS MS F TOTAL 9 2871 SAMPLE-POPULATION 1 806 806 1.55 NS LOTS 1 1359 310 1.92 NS ERROR 1 706 177 TABIE XIII. Analysis of the five cases of a frequency of 20 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling method column in Table XXIII. L 0 T S i : INDIV. i INDIV. ‘_ 1 2 3 1 5 : TOTAL : AVERACE I 10.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 11.00 31.00 6.20 N O 15.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 31.00 6.20 D : 3.50 10.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 26.50 5.30 Table continued on next page. TABLE XLIX. Contimed . 109 L 0 s ; INDIV. : INDIV. 1 2 3 1 5 : TOTAL : AVERAGE 7.50 6.00 7.00 5.00 1.00 29.50 5.90 10.00 10.00 5.00 6.00 1.98 32.98 6.60 10.00 6.00 10.00 8.00 1.00 35.00 7.00 I 1.50 5.50 7.50 7.50 1.00 29.00 5.80 N 7.50 13.75 3.50 10.00 5.00 39.75 7.95 D 8.00 8.00 12.00 10.00 3.00 11.00 . 8.20 I O 10.00 8.00 10.00 3.00 27.80 58.80 11.76 V R 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 1.00 27.00 5.10 I D 9.00 3.00 10.00 3.00 12.50 37.50 7.50 D E 3.50 5.00 8.00 2.50 10.00 29.00 5.80 u R 7.50 10.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 30.50 6.10 A S 1.00 8.25 7.00 1.50 10.00 30.75 6.15 L 5.00 6.00 15.00 8.00 2.30 36.30 7.26 5.00 3.50 7.50 12.50 5.00 33.50 6.70 6.00 1.50 6.00 1.00 5.00 19.50 3.90 1.00 7.50 11.00 1.50 6.00 36.00 7.20 7.00 3.00 10.00 5.00 6.67 31.67 6.33 mom 112.00 127.00 153.50 111.50 132.25 666.25 AgrE‘IAGE 7.10 6.35; 7.68 5.58 6.61 6.66 LSD LOTS 55- 1.77 1%- 2.31 110 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE XLIX. DF SS 7 MS F _ TOTAL 99 1177 LOTS 1 50 12.50 0.80 NS INDIVIDUALS 19 233 12.26 0.61 NS mm 76 1191 15.71 TABLE L. Comparison of the five cases of a frequency of 20 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling column in Table XXXIX and the corresponding population values divided by 10. 3833mm- L 0 T S __xPOPUL. :POPUL. 1 2 3 1 5 :TUI‘AL :AVERAGE SAMPLE 112.00 127.00 153.50 111.50 132.25 666.25 133.25 PCP/10 111.27 139.08 115.61 131.01 139.27 702.27 110.15 LOT TOTAL 286.27 266.08 299.11 215.51 271.52 1368.52 Rams 113.11 133.01 118.56 122.77 135.76 136.85 LSD SAMPLE-P0P 5%- 8.10 1%- 11.61 LSD LOTS 55— 12.80 1%- 18.10 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE L. A DF SS MS F TOTAL 9 1215 SAMPLE-POPULATION 1 129 129 2.02 Ns LOTS 1 830 208 3.25 NS ERROR 1 256 61 111 TABLE LI. Analysis of the five cases of a frequency of 30 which appear in the "In-Shop” systematic sampling method column in Table XLI. __ L o T s INDIV. : INDIV. 1 2 3 1 5 : TOTAL : AVERAGE 6.00 5.00 15.00 5.85 1.50 33.35 6.67 8.00 6.00 7.50 10.00 5.00 36.50 7.30 I 15.00 3.50 3.50 6.50 6.00 31.50 6.90 N 6.00 7.00 7.50 5.00 10.00 35.50 7.10 D 6.00 10.00 7.50 2.00 20.00 15.50 9.10 I 15.00 7.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 57.00 11.10 v 5.00 5.00 1.50 15.00 6.00 35.50 7.10 I 8.00 3.50 1.00 7.50 2.50 25.50 5.10 D 9.70 5.00 6.25 7.50 5.00 33.15 6.69 U 5.00 1.50 7.00 3.50 1.00 21.00 1.80 A 10.00 17.00 6.00 1.00 6.00 13.c0 8.60 L 9.00 1.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 39.00 7.80 5.00 6.00 3.50 1.25 17.00 32.75 6.55 O 10.c0 3.00 3.50 11.00 10.00 37.50 7.50 R 15.00 5.00 10.00 3.50 10.00 13.50 8.70 D 8.00 5.00 1.50 7.50 15.00 10.00 8.00 E 7.50 5.00 3.75 10.00 10.00 36.25 7.25 R 1.00 15.00 1.00 12.00 21.00 56.00 11.20 S 5.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 3.00 21.00 1.20 15.00 8.50 7.50 10.00 10.00 51.00 10.20 15.00 5.50 7.50 1.50 5.00 37.50 7.50 Table continued on next page. 112 TABLE LI. Contimed. 8 L O T s _: INDIV. : INDIV. 1 2 3 1 5 : TOTAL : AVERAGE I 5.00 1.00 5.00 10.00 12.00 36.00 7.20 N 0 1.00 5.00 10.00 7.50 9.50 36.00 7.20 D R 5.00 10.00 12.00 7.50 5.00 39.50 7.90 I D 7.50 8.00 1.50 10.00 7.50 37.50 7.50 v E 5.00 12.50 5.00 2.00 7.00 31.50 6.30 I R 5.00 25.00 10.00 11.50 7.00 61.50 12.30 D 8 10.00 10.00 8.00 10.00 8.00 16.00 9.20 U 7.50 5.00 7.50 3.50 1.00 27.50 5.50 A 7.00 7.00 15.00 10.00 3.50 12.50 8.50 LOT TOTAL 213.20 221.00 213.00 232.60 216.50 1156.30 TEENAGE 8.11 7.37 7.10 7.75 8.22 7.71 LSD LOTS 57‘- 1.18 11¢- 1.96 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE LI. g 01“ SS MS F TOTAL 119 2180 LOTS 1 - 27 6.75 0.10 NS INDIVIDUALS 29 500 17.21 1.02 NS ERRCR 116 1953 16.83 113 TABLE LII. Comparison of the five cases of a frequency of 30 which appear in the "In-8110p” systematic sampling column in Table XLI and the correspondirg population values divided by 10. L o E s _W 1 2 3 1 5 :TOTAL :AVERAGE SAMPLE 213.20 221.00 213.00 232.60 216.50 1156.30 231.26 POP/10 255.51 189.36 207.29 207.29 228.16 1087.61 217.52 LOT TOTAL 198.71 110.36 120.29 139.89 171.66 2213.91 $63 219.36 205.18 210.15 219.95 237.33 221.39 1%- 17.91 LSD LOTS 51- 19.72 1%- 28.31 ANALYSIS OF VARIAICE FOR TABLE LII. LSD SAMPLE-POP 5%- 12.16 DF SS MS F TOTAL 9 3816 SAMPIEpPOPlJIAT ION l 172 172 3.11 NS LOTS 1 2765 691 1. 55 NS ERROR 1 609 152 TABLE LIII. Analysis of the five cases of the frequency of 10 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling method column in Table XLIII. L 0 T S : INDIV. : INDIV. 1 2- 3 1 5 : TOTAL : AVERAGE I 12.00 5.00 8.00 3.50 9.00 37.50 7.50 N 0 15.00 20.38 1.00 5.00 5.00 16.38 9.28 D R 5.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 7.50 21.50 1.30 I D 5.00 5.00 0.10 5.00 8.00 23.10 1.62 Table contimed on next page. 111 TABLE LIII. Continued. : 3 L 0 S : INDIV. : INDIV. 1 2 3 1 5 : TOTAL. : AVERAGE 5.00 1.00 10.00 5.25 5.00 29.25 5.85 12.50 7.00 3.00 7.50 9.25 39.25 7.85 I 8.00 6.00 3.00 2.89 20.50 10.39 8.08 N 5.00 7.50 10.00 1.00 10.00 36.50 7.30 D 5.00 10.00 8.50 2.98 6.00 32.18 6.50 I 10.00 7.50 20.00 5.00 10.00 52.50 10.50 V 7.50 5.00 5;00 12.50 5.00 35.00 7.00 I 10.00 1.00 20.00 5.00 7.00 16.00 9.20 I) 10.00 5.00 7.50 8.11 5.00 35.61 7.13 u 7.50 8.00 1.19 6.00 3.75 26.71 5.35 .A 10.00 5.00 10.00 5.00 7.50 37.50 7.50 L 8.00 8.00 7.50 3.00 6.00 32.50 5.50 10.00 3.00 10.00 1.00 11.00 38.00 7.60 O 25.00 2.00 6.00 2.98 6.00 11.98 8.10 R 15.00 10.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 12.00 8.10 D 10.00 10.00 2.50 9.10 7.50 39.10 7.82 E 15.00 10.00 5.00 2.98 1.75 37.73 7.55 R 10.00 1.55 1.00 6.00 7.00 25.55 5.11 S 7.50 5.00 10.00 7.00 9.71 39.21 7.81 10.00 12.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 37.00 7.10 5.00 7.50 5.00 3.00 5.00 25.50 5.10 7.50 6.25 5.00 1.00 6.50 29.25 5.85 Table contimed on next page. TABLE LIII. Continued. L o T S : INDIV. : INDIV. 1 3 3 1 A _5 : £0111. : ”Egg 7.50 2.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 23.50 1.70 I 10.00 5.00 10.00 1.05 10.00 36.05 7.21 N 6.00 8.00 3.18 5.00 7.00 29.18 5.90 D 10.00 1.50 7.00 0.50 5.00 21.00 1.80 I O 7.50 5.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 27.50 5.50 V R 6.00 1.50 0.63 7.50 12.62 28.25 5.65 I D 15.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 28.00 5.60 D E 12.50 12.50 2.33 1.00 7.50 38.83 7.77 U R 10.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 1.00 39.00 7.80 A S 7.50 5.00 1.18 18.00 6.00 37.68 7.51 L 7.50 10.00 3.98 23.70 6.00 51.18 10.21 7.50 10.00 5.00 7.50 10.00 10.00 8.00 10.00 15.00 3.50 30.00 20.00 78.50 15.70 20.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 32.00 6.10 LOT TOTAL 387.50 271.18 221.69 257.07 301.08 1111.52 _ £3391: 9.69 6.78 5.62_ 6.13 7.53 7.21 LSD LOTS 5%- 1.10 1%- 1.85 ANALYSIS OF VARIANJE FOR TABLE LIII. f _g h L DF SS MS F __ 1 TOTAL 199 1280 IOTS 1 383 95. 75 1.81 «a INDIVIDUALS 39 808 20.72 1.05 NS ERROR 156 3089 19.80 116 TABLE LIV. Comparison of the five cases of a frequency of 10 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling column in Table XLIII and the correspording population values divided by 10. * .m L 0 T S __zPOPUL. :POPUL. 1 2 3 1 5 2 TOTAL : AVERAGE SAMPLE 387.50 271.18 221.69 257.07 301.08 1111.52 288.30 POP/10 363.35 316.51 222.91 291.71 301.36 1195.81 299.17 LOT TOTAL 750.85 587.69 117.60 518.78 602.11 2937.36 Erma 375.13 293.85 223.80 271.39 301.22 293.71 LSD SAMPLE-POP 5%. 20.10 13.. 29.32 LSD LOTS 55- 32.26 1%- 16.35 wLYSIS 0F VARIANCE TOR TABLE LIV DF' SS __ MS I“ __ TOTAL 9 25910 SALLPLE-LpPLLLATIGN 1 295 295 0.72 NS LOTS 1 23989 5997 11.73 * ERROR 1 1626 107 TABLE LV. Analysis of the five cases of the frequency of 50 which appear in the "In-310p” systematic sampling method column in Table XLV. L 0__l S : INDIV. : INDIV. 1 2’ 3 1 5 1 TOTAL : AVERAGE I 7.50 5.00 6.00 11.90 6.00 39.10 7.88 N o 10.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 9.00 37.00 7.10 D R 10.00 5.00 15.00 12.50 10.00 52.50 10.50 I D 7.50 8.00 15.00 7.50 10.00 18.00 9.60 Table contimed on next page. 117 TABLE LV. Continued. _1 _ 3 _‘A .1. L 0 T S _ : INDIV. z INDIV. l 2 3 1 5 : TOTAL : AVERAGE 20.00 10.00 6.00 5.00 12.00 53.00 10.60 10.00 15.00 3.00 5.00 10.00 13.00 8.60 I 12.00 5.00 10.95 8.00 10.00 15.95 9.19 N 7.50 2.50 6.00 5.50 12.00 33.50 6.70 D 15.00 1.35 15.00 7.50 15.00 53.85 10.77 I 20.00 7.50 5.00 5.00 15.00 52.50 10.50 V 10.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 I 10.00 5.00 8.00 9.00 9.67 11.67 8.33 D 15.00 5.00 9.70 5.00 10.00 11.70 8.91 0 5.00 7.00 1.00 1.10 6.00 26.10 5.28 A 7.50 1.35 5.00 5.00 10.00 31.85 6.37 L 10.00 10.00 31.10 2.00 10.00 66.10 13.28 5.00 5.00 .00 6.00 10.00 31.00 6.20 0 7.50 5.00 3.00 10.00 1.00 29.50 5.90 R 10.00 1.00 5.00 10.00 10.00 39.00 7.80 D 9.00 5.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 31.00 6.80 E 5.00 11.00 9.00 6.00 9.00 13.00 8.60 R 7.50 6.00 3.50 7.50 5.00 29.50 5.90 S 5.00 5.00 3.00 7.00 10.00 30.00 6.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 7.50 3.50 26.00 5.20 10.00 3.50 10.00 11.00 6.00 10.50 8.10 3.00 11.00 5.00 12.50 5.00 39.50 7.90 Table continued on next page. TABLE LV. 0 ant 1m” 0 11.3 0 T S : IIDIV. : INDIV. 1 2 3 1__» 5 : TOTAL : AVERAGE 15.00 1.00 5.00 12.00 5.00 11.00 8.20 1.00 3.00 15.00 6.00 5.00 33.00 6.60 I 8.00 5.00 6.00 15.00 10.00 11.00 8.80 N 5.00 12.00 8.00 6.00 10.00 11.00 8.20 D 10.00 2.50 7.50 5.00 1.50 29.50 5.90 I 7.50 7.50 1.00 10.00 3.50 32.50 6.50 V 5.00 2.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 25.50 5.10 I 20.00 7.50 15.00 5.00 2.50 50.00 10.00 D 15.00 9.25 15.00 8.00 5.00 52.25 10.15 U 8.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 26.00 5.20 A 7.50 2.50 15.00 1.00 5.00 31.00 6.80 L 5.00 9.15 5.00 10.00 15.00 11.15 8.83 5.00 7.50 20.00 12.00 6.50 51.00 10.20 0 10.00 6.00 1.00 9.00 12.50 11.50 8.30 R 7.50 10.00 5.00 10.00 5.50 38.00 7.60 D 5.00 7.00 7.50 15.00 7.50 12.00 8.10 E 12.00 6.00 5.00 8.00 10.00 11.00 8.20 R 20.00 5.00 6.00 10.00 12.00 53.00 10.60 S 9.00 5.00 5.00 15.00 7.00 11.00 8.20 6.00 1.35 10.00 6.00 5.00 28.35 5.67 6.00 5.00 7.50 15.00 5.50 39.00 7.80 17.50 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.50 10.00 8.00 Table continued on next page. 119 TABLE LV. Continued. 3 8 __ L 0 S : INDIV. a INDIV. 1 2 3 1 5 : TOTAL : AVERAGE f_O 7.50 5.00 6.00 8.35 10.00 36.85 7.37 N R 12.00 5.00 7.00 15.00 7.50 16.50 9.30 1:17? TOTAL 170.50 307.95 109.05 110.15 105.17 2002.82 3203 9.11 6.36 8.18 8.20 8:10 8.01 LSD LOTS 57- 1.11 1%- 1.51 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE LV. _ _ DF SS ‘ MS‘__ 5‘ ‘ TOTAL 219 1362 IDTS 1 273 68.25 1.01 Net INDIVIDUALS 19 777 15.86 0.91 NS ERROR 196 3312 16.90 TABLE LVI. Comparison of the five cases of a frequency of 50 which appear in the "In-Shop" systematic sampling column in Table XLV and the corresponding population values divided by l0. ‘ m L 0 S :POPUL. .POPUL. _ l 2 3 1 5 :TOTAL :AVERAGE SAMPLE 170.50 307.95 109.05 110.15 105.17 2002.82 100.56 POP/10 151.92 299.92 152.18 110.88 129.11 2017.31 109.16 L_OT__ TOTAL 925.12 607.87 861.53 821.03 831.28 1050.13 EELAGE 162.71 303.91 130.77 110.52 117.11 105.01 LSD SAMPLE-P0P 5%- 17.39 1%- 21.99 LSD LOTS 5%- 27.53 1%- 39.55 120 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TABLE LVI. DF SS MS F TOTAL 9 30156 SAMPLE-POPULATION 1 198 198 0.67 NS LOIS 1 28773 7191 21.30 *8 ERROR 1 1185 296 Table continual on next page. :kng 1.--. Esvcentage relationship of the "InnShop" systematic samples multipliai by 10, to the popILaLion in the case of all retail sales. M 0 N T R JUL; AUGUST SEPTEMBER Ji‘ 7:9 NOVHIBEL DEOEITEB .ANLLR: :SAMELE AVERAGE§SHOP AVERAGE 1" alue Freq Value Freq Value Freq Va ue Freq .6. E freq 18 Iraq 10 Freq Value Freq Value 9-1 2 3 97.88 30.28 103.22 91.52 96.17 83.13 10c.99 102.98 100.00 87.25 99.19 97.10 101.61 .79 99.63 93.70 . A L 97.88 37.25 102.10 91.07 96.17 106.77 99.31 88.26 100.00 88.81 99.19 97.19 100.90 105.07 99.11 96.81 U AVERAGE 97.58 98.77 101.31 91.29 96.17 91.95 100.17 45.62 100.00 88.07 99.19 97.29 100.82 97.13 99.5: 95.27 25-1 3 7 97.63 107.10 101.17 100.68 7.31 52.12 99.11 91.15 98.70 101.67 99.59 116.07 100.51 101.93 99.25 103.91 -: :.5~ 11.51 98.57 91.12 101.80 91.88 97.92 92.31 100.00 85.16 100.27 0.28 ~.. 32.22 99.76 70.90 E . TAGE 99..1 109.81 99.87 96.05 99.55 91.65 98.53 93.23 99.35 91.91 99.”? 98.17 99.86 97.58 99.51. 97.10 25'2”: ’ 97.35 90.88 95.53 130.79 100.10 90.18 101.37 87.81 96.73 86.82 99.79 107.89 98.68 92.17 98.58 99.13 1 101.77 105.1; 98.61 '2.30 102.11 102.97 97.91 95.72 102.68 111.21 100. 2 99.50 100.33 105.71 100.60 91.61 f AVERAGE 99.56 33.16 97.07 101.55 101.11 96.68 99.66 91.76 99.70 99.02 103.31 103.69 99.51 99.09 99.59 99.01 \ 25-3 : A .1; 66.36 88.67 77.81 100.56 162.66 96.77 78.63 101.65 110.35 98.00 91.37 103.26 108.13 98.19 99.28 E I 97.11 102.32 98. 2 91.96 100.56 69.93 101.38 102.70 96.90 83.12 100.22 93.92 97.5; 91.26 99.38 91.87 3 AVERDGT 97.11 85-19 93.60 86.10 100.56 116.30 99.08 90.67 100.78 96.71 99.11 91.1» 100.51 101.35 98.78 95.57 N . 11-1 3 I 99.20 108.81 101.35 97.88 98.71 138.98 97.65 95.11 100.18 101.21 100.16 109.18 90.71 98.39 98.53 106.15 S I 99.20 103.09 96.85 97.90 103.00 88.68 99.16 96.83 100.18 119.1: 102.28 110.32 98.30 100.76 100.26 103.85 AVEEAOE 99.20 105.95 .99.10 97.89 100.86 113.53 98.55 95.97 100.18 110.32 101.37 109.90 91.52 99.57 99.11 105.00 ; 78-1 : x 06.5‘ 97.88 97.17 79.08 99.79 95.17 98.15 85.01 100.91 96.11 95.5: 1.0.25 101.01 100.80 98.91 99.73 . I 03.51 93.69 103.21 93.21 95.63 102.10 100.17 119.27 111.91 99.85 103.92 98.11 98.18 87.29 100.10 99.39 I AVERAGBdfl96.Sl 95.79 100.20 86.25 _97.71 98.91 99.31 102.15 100.91 98.00 101.36 119.1; 99.75 91.01 99.52 99:56” AREA—MONTHLY AREA AVERAGE AVERAGE 98.17 102.56 99.01 96.07 99.38 98.61 99.19 91.39 100.00 97.63 300.19 102.21 99.08 98.02 99.15 98.68 TABLE LVII. Continued. 1 0 . 7 9 s 7 JULK--.,.----NAEGUST _,__.§§E§?C3§ifl.111199T933? NOVEMBER DECEMBER 1-.4111985111_112§Eflfié? 171910129302 1701102~J Freq Value Freq $211; Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value 38.1 : 7 97.97 98.59 100.55 100.32 99.67 88.87 100.20 90.80 100.00 101.35 99.2 91.17 00.20 96.30 99.69 95.63 I 7 101.55 98.26 99.63 100.71 100.19 107.51 100.20 103.57 100.00 101.23 99.25 96.08 99.52 107.10 99.97 102.05 N AVERAGE 99.76 98.12 100.09 130.55 100.08 98.19 100.20 97.19 100.00 105.39 99.10 91.78 99.86 101.70 99.83 98.81 38-2 : x 101.01 92.26 100.11 103.61 99.88 109.16 99.19 120.82 99.63 90.91 98.90 88.71 100.17 101.10 99.71 100.03 a Y 98.17~ 95.01 100.11 95.60 99.88 87.12 99.19 109.31 99.63 99.10 99.12 100.11 -00.19 110.59 99.57 100.26 A AVERAGE 99.58 93.61 100.11 99.62 99.88 98.11 99.19 115.0“ 99.63 95.16» 99.16 91.57 .00.19 107.31 99.61 100.11 c 1 78—3 . x 89.55 110.08 97.56 80.87 102.27 60.59 100.50 30.28 102.15 100.26 76.73 81.02 101.80 97.61 98.80 85.81 s 7 101.18 271.60 97.56 68.01 102.27 19.11 95.18 152.29 102.15 76.03 10..33 83.87 101.80 92.11 100.18 111..8 0 1912102 97.01 190.81 97.56 71.11 102.27 55.00 97.99 116.29 102.15 88.15 98.67 82.15 101.80 95.05 99.61 98.70 38.1 9 X 85.37 70.98 87.50 87.88 111.10 163.91 101.17 91.90 100.00 93.51 100.96 89.18 98.29 91.81 99.78 99.85 0 Y 97.58 69.79 111.50 99.11 96.19 103.33 101.17 73.52 90.91 83.33 100.96 97.82 98.29 105.99 99.78 91.15 8 1799109 91.P5 70.38 09.00 93.66 105.26 113.62 101.17 81.21 95.15 88.1 .00.96 93.55 .22 “0.’1 99.79 91.77 Q . 313-5: X 97.6? 108.21 81.1.1 106.3? 100.38 92.63 99.12 88.32 100.73 102.7? ”-85? 95.88 108. 7 86.79 9?.90 96.113 P 1 100.00 79.99 81.11 75.03 100.38 81.05 99.12 102.12 99.27 109.18 96.39 99.01 100.27 107.37 97.50 95.59 AVERAGE 98.81 91.10 81.11 90.70 100.38 86.3; 99.12 95.37 100.00 105.98 97.11 97.15 100.27 97.08 97.70 96.01 38.6 2 x 98.36 110.92 105.96 221.97 99.10 82.69 96.15 72.33 101.77 86.31 86.85 95.53 100.11 81.96 96.66 102.61 Y 98.36 88.81 99.311.35.19 99.10 88.50 100.00 97.18 101.771.00.52 89.20 100.52. 100.11 88.85 97.21 99.23 AVERAGE 98.36 99.86 102.65 180.08 99.10 85.60 98.08 81.76 101.77 93.12 88.03 98.03 100.11 85.11 96.95 100.92; AREA-MONTHLY 1021 AVERAGE AVERAGE 99.03 100.11 97.52 101.23 100.26 91.62 99.76 101.01 99.98 100.15 98.31 91.75 100.05 101.22 99.20 98.87 GRAND AVER. 98.73 101.53 98.32 99.110 99.83 97.12 99.19 97.36 99.98 98.81 99.13 98.57 99.62 99.11 99.32 98.76 l «a. .2 (.11 TABLQ 13113. ?ercentage reiationship of the "In—Shop" systematic samples multiplied by IQ, to 050 populatinn in the case of arrangement sales ___1._....1_1__-..1--11.”--.1.._.11.... M .;:11_11;1_ 2 H 3 __11.._. .~__.1.11_..,. :11: J__'n51§§§T 522201030 0010302 NDVEMEER 02010322 JANUARY :SAMPLE AVERAGE;§,GF AVERAGE Freq 3309 ’req 0100 8200 Value “reg Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value "3 * . x 85.25 96.91 8:.90 “..53 86.4, 87.93 205.13 122.37 93.33 78.86 100.56 107.00 87.17 91.98 95.05 97.05 [I Y ”7.28 123.2. 98.515 107.33- .01.15 107. 7 119.6c. 88.11 93.33 80.5? 100.56 95.78 109.85 116.02. 100.37 103.02 3 A 99107 91.77 110.1. 3-.57 29.93 +5.c~ 37.62 .67.3: 107.25 93.33 81.62 100.56 '01.55 98.08 105.71 97.71 100.03 25.1 : 7 98.33 101.85 92.00 81.25 110.85 107.56 95.33 92.97 93.56 98.25 96. 2 106.65 95.56 98.20 91.23 98.21 7 2 101.60 133.02 ;01.0. 10h.0< 10,.91 90.15 110.28 101.88 101.87 90.81 101.15 101.36 101.15 111.13 101.53 101.66 1:92102 1 1.06 10h.10 98.”; 92.90 107.39 130.86 102.30 97.13 97.71 96.53 99.03 100.01 100.00 100.66 100.89 99.90 25-2 . 7 88.20 102.1 92.11 71.37 95.2. 95.18 - .-¢ 119.55 85.00 78.76 108.70 110.67 92.01 87.82 95.15 95.86 . 1 101.58 112.79 90.85 98.16 123.81 118.91 112.09 125.50 105.00 90.87 108./v 33.95 102.31 100.95 107.18 107.77 A 1725.”: 96.11 107.50 93.50 90.76 109.52 107.06 109.11 117.57 95.00 81.81 108.70 109.81 97.36 96.39 101.10 101.81 K 21-3 . 1 72.92 65.«7 93.22 99.50 108.91 110.00 68.63 5*.51 122.37 106.80 138.89 131.11 116.28 117.53 102.92 99.58 F 1 100.17 89.89 110.17 103.20 108.91 90.0; 107.81 00.LO 101.85 101.92 92.59 109.85 69.77 73.36 100.19 93.06 172110- 88.50 77.93 101.69 101.37 108.91 100.22 88.20 71.06 111.11 101.38 115.71 120.50 93.02 95.61 101.56 96.33 9 ‘ 61-1 - x 120.93 117.25 121.21 128.33 70.07 70.35 111.80 111.35 136.03 102.15 79.75 79.85 101.01 112.21 106.13 109.62 fl Y 102.33 117.09 113.60 116.71 92.5? 98.03 82.20 93.81 99.26 93.78 125.77 126.20 101.01 102.75 102.96 107.30 M AVERAGE 111.63 117.17 117.12 122.52 83.33 8h.39 97.00 100.08 117.65 117.96 102.76 103.03 101.01 107.58 100.55 108.88 0 78-1 : x 101.91 117.98 87.63 76.80 100.56 113.25 67.11 55.20 100.00 81.07 65.93 56.10 108.25 93.70 92.39 88.35 P Y 111.65 111.02 113.10 105.35 111.73 91.32 93.96 98.19 85.71 79.76 182.86 133.81 103.09 105.02 107.80 102.09 . 3 AVERAGE 108.28 116.00 100.52 91.07 106.15 102.28 80.51 76.70 92.86 81.92 101.00 95.12 105.67 99.58 100.13 95.22 AREA—MONTHLY . AREA AVERAGE AVERAGE 101.00 107.06 99.82 98.76 103.00 100.03 100.56 100.52 100.26 91.11 103.83 105.15 99.70‘102.61 101.12 101.05 Table continued on next page. TABLE LVIII. Continued. ‘ M 3 N T H 1") JQPTrMBER OCTflBER NOVEME"? L “iif%? IAX7A~I :SAMPLE AVERAGE.SHOP AVERAGE c3 _. {'4 m: ,n» .. Q .. LA D n Freq Value Freq Value Freq Yalue Freq Value Freq Valle Freq Value Freq Vaiue Freq Value Freq Value a 1 1 ~, / .r q 1" p _- ./ ,,. -.~ :x —-- ,«.-, . » .. ~-\ ~- 2 ‘ I. 38"}.- Z X 8.L.?2 911.1..5 890)‘; 91.10.13 106/)15 93:45) 19?. 3 F5050 99.56 ()7th 5:591}, ETC-«3i ;UU¢; Lb Q‘JoSU 9Q? 3M?) QZ'eT’rk, v a If: f‘” V at“ A -\ 3n. ' {‘ ‘1 -'~‘ I“. ‘n 1 . . . «a < ' 'v“ .~ -. ,, t4 . If: , a - ‘A r; m-.. ,~. 1 1103.1}..‘5 Q?081 £213.53 990 U _LUQOSO 911:;5'3 .L‘Jjg9f ludghi 9?. ‘7 11.25.. 3;. 405.21. », LLjaér _Lihejl'i LELAND an} 9132 LU? 51.29 N 1‘ a . 1 i ,f « ) r v a .4 a "x - ,.\ ‘7 p. ,- / n4 . ..,.‘ . . .9 . ‘ 2.. a, r A u‘ , a r ,.‘ AVmAUE Suva“? 1130611 69008 QUagL' 10,503?) 93.75 Ami/975' 97a 4’, 98.28/ J‘quk 9!,305 EOCQJU 10704:) 110691;? 9t‘w33 91895.7( 38-2 : X 10?.50 10“.hé 99.32 96.67 :9.h9 96.38 113.52 102.68 7b.}: 73.36 92.0? 85.39 103.98 i09.5i 98.22 95.63 J A Y 135.90 100.29 10..35 101.35 96.9L 93..3 £31.97 10c.35 103.60 93.23 x¢.:3 93.92 58.50 85.68 103.09 96.3u -VERAGE 106.25 102.38 103.8h 98.85 98.2; 95.20 106.19 :0b.?7 c8.9é 83.1L 9-.83 89.90 9c.2a 97.55 99.10 95.99 K 33%} z X 83.33 121.32 121.95 13b.55 8?.11 79.89 57.57 50.18 98.0t 107.:0 108.11 :hn.3? 65.:a 1,,,,. 3*.9: -“iaiv 3 E 53.33 69.99 97.56 ?6.?é 136.32 323.61 9L.69 107.9h 58.82 38.63 91.59 82.59 68.9? 63.99 Bé.§& 86.2i 0 A ‘RAGE 83.33 95.66 109.7é ECSo76 96.?L 98.71 51.3% au.cfi 78..3 33.j9 101.35 113.25 .'.~v 92.3: 89.3% 9;.H8 N 38mL ; X 78.h3 91.60 100.00 122.00 20a.SE 256.62 93.02 126.39 100.00 109.F& 12?.1L 1:6.32 €1.28 A3.6L 113.95 132.38 Y 98.0E 91.80 100.90 132..O 68.15 TOoBB 93.02 7L.25 50.03 hbe26 SL.QS 63.3i Lff CL gu}.L‘ 3? w‘; 6. ~34! .afiik 81w ‘4 ~.. AVERAGE 88.2: 91.80 lOG.CO 130.00 135.35 16L.7€ 93.02 101.35 75.00 ?€.92 105.13 1c3.23 76.92 93.1? 97.c¥:12@.:? 0 38—5 ; X 98.S2 86.32 8h.3b 78.76 7be29 90.93 101932 99978 thaéfi 101.é8 98.33 13;. 3 78.L3 ?3.§3 91063 91.99 9 P Y 98.52 79.32 Bhe3h 103.05 97.3L 98.22 88.33 33.18 91.70 lh“.38 98.31 82.75 112.50 116.59 97 0;.86 O u h“ 5 AVERAGE 98.52 82.82 8h.3E 90.91 85.?1 9ho§8 9b.?1 9lch 93.89 12L.25 98.11 9“ 1A 95.31 95.06 9boh§ 96°93 38—6 : X 125.93 lhl.3h 98.90 95.39 90.91 8 .01 llEeBS 10b.]h 8&903 86.78 ?9.SE 72.03 89.29 86oh0 99.30 98.33 7 Y 103.70 98.h1 131.87 138.2n 106.06 97.?9 93.02 1-3.12 13h.LS 130.17 79.55 92.30 95.31 m > 25 “w .79 16?.65 AVEHAQTlltfil 119.57 1151.38 116.832. 98.158 92.3.12 1024.65 3.03.63 109.91: 108.L’i 79.55 82.22 93075; 93.39 103011103430 AREAuMONTHLI . 5‘ . .4. ()7 AVERAGE 99.23 98.33 95.31;? ARA AVEFAxfi :9.?; 93.37 191.53 99.03 95.28 98.h1 96.9h 95.85 99.0? 101.3u 98~19 98e36 GRAND AVER. lOCoh3 103.16 98.06 98.58 lCl.L6 98a36 101.03 99.86 97.86 95o90 100.03 100.88 99.b3 102.05 99.70 99.82 l «a. .2 (.11 TABLQ 13113. ?ercentage reiationship of the "In—Shop" systematic samples multiplied by IQ, to 050 populatinn in the case of arrangement sales ___1._....1_1__-..1--11.”--.1.._.11.... M .;:11_11;1_ 2 H 3 __11.._. .~__.1.11_..,. :11: J__'n51§§§T 522201030 0010302 NDVEMEER 02010322 JANUARY :SAMPLE AVERAGE;§,GF AVERAGE Freq 3309 ’req 0100 8200 Value “reg Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value Freq Value "3 * . x 85.25 96.91 8:.90 “..53 86.4, 87.93 205.13 122.37 93.33 78.86 100.56 107.00 87.17 91.98 95.05 97.05 [I Y ”7.28 123.2. 98.515 107.33- .01.15 107. 7 119.6c. 88.11 93.33 80.5? 100.56 95.78 109.85 116.02. 100.37 103.02 3 A 99107 91.77 110.1. 3-.57 29.93 +5.c~ 37.62 .67.3: 107.25 93.33 81.62 100.56 '01.55 98.08 105.71 97.71 100.03 25.1 : 7 98.33 101.85 92.00 81.25 110.85 107.56 95.33 92.97 93.56 98.25 96. 2 106.65 95.56 98.20 91.23 98.21 7 2 101.60 133.02 ;01.0. 10h.0< 10,.91 90.15 110.28 101.88 101.87 90.81 101.15 101.36 101.15 111.13 101.53 101.66 1:92102 1 1.06 10h.10 98.”; 92.90 107.39 130.86 102.30 97.13 97.71 96.53 99.03 100.01 100.00 100.66 100.89 99.90 25-2 . 7 88.20 102.1 92.11 71.37 95.2. 95.18 - .-¢ 119.55 85.00 78.76 108.70 110.67 92.01 87.82 95.15 95.86 . 1 101.58 112.79 90.85 98.16 123.81 118.91 112.09 125.50 105.00 90.87 108./v 33.95 102.31 100.95 107.18 107.77 A 1725.”: 96.11 107.50 93.50 90.76 109.52 107.06 109.11 117.57 95.00 81.81 108.70 109.81 97.36 96.39 101.10 101.81 K 21-3 . 1 72.92 65.«7 93.22 99.50 108.91 110.00 68.63 5*.51 122.37 106.80 138.89 131.11 116.28 117.53 102.92 99.58 F 1 100.17 89.89 110.17 103.20 108.91 90.0; 107.81 00.LO 101.85 101.92 92.59 109.85 69.77 73.36 100.19 93.06 172110- 88.50 77.93 101.69 101.37 108.91 100.22 88.20 71.06 111.11 101.38 115.71 120.50 93.02 95.61 101.56 96.33 9 ‘ 61-1 - x 120.93 117.25 121.21 128.33 70.07 70.35 111.80 111.35 136.03 102.15 79.75 79.85 101.01 112.21 106.13 109.62 fl Y 102.33 117.09 113.60 116.71 92.5? 98.03 82.20 93.81 99.26 93.78 125.77 126.20 101.01 102.75 102.96 107.30 M AVERAGE 111.63 117.17 117.12 122.52 83.33 8h.39 97.00 100.08 117.65 117.96 102.76 103.03 101.01 107.58 100.55 108.88 0 78-1 : x 101.91 117.98 87.63 76.80 100.56 113.25 67.11 55.20 100.00 81.07 65.93 56.10 108.25 93.70 92.39 88.35 P Y 111.65 111.02 113.10 105.35 111.73 91.32 93.96 98.19 85.71 79.76 182.86 133.81 103.09 105.02 107.80 102.09 . 3 AVERAGE 108.28 116.00 100.52 91.07 106.15 102.28 80.51 76.70 92.86 81.92 101.00 95.12 105.67 99.58 100.13 95.22 AREA—MONTHLY . AREA AVERAGE AVERAGE 101.00 107.06 99.82 98.76 103.00 100.03 100.56 100.52 100.26 91.11 103.83 105.15 99.70‘102.61 101.12 101.05 Table continued on next page. TABLE LVIII. Continued. ‘ M 3 N T H 1") JQPTrMBER OCTflBER NOVEME"? L “iif%? IAX7A~I :SAMPLE AVERAGE.SHOP AVERAGE c3 _. {'4 m: ,n» .. Q .. LA D n Freq Value Freq Value Freq Yalue Freq Value Freq Valle Freq Value Freq Vaiue Freq Value Freq Value a 1 1 ~, / .r q 1" p _- ./ ,,. -.~ :x —-- ,«.-, . » .. ~-\ ~- 2 ‘ I. 38"}.- Z X 8.L.?2 911.1..5 890)‘; 91.10.13 106/)15 93:45) 19?. 3 F5050 99.56 ()7th 5:591}, ETC-«3i ;UU¢; Lb Q‘JoSU 9Q? 3M?) QZ'eT’rk, v a If: f‘” V at“ A -\ 3n. ' {‘ ‘1 -'~‘ I“. ‘n 1 . . . «a < ' 'v“ .~ -. ,, t4 . If: , a - ‘A r; m-.. ,~. 1 1103.1}..‘5 Q?081 £213.53 990 U _LUQOSO 911:;5'3 .L‘Jjg9f ludghi 9?. ‘7 11.25.. 3;. 405.21. », LLjaér _Lihejl'i LELAND an} 9132 LU? 51.29 N 1‘ a . 1 i ,f « ) r v a .4 a "x - ,.\ ‘7 p. ,- / n4 . ..,.‘ . . .9 . ‘ 2.. a, r A u‘ , a r ,.‘ AVmAUE Suva“? 1130611 69008 QUagL' 10,503?) 93.75 Ami/975' 97a 4’, 98.28/ J‘quk 9!,305 EOCQJU 10704:) 110691;? 9t‘w33 91895.7( 38-2 : X 10?.50 10“.hé 99.32 96.67 :9.h9 96.38 113.52 102.68 7b.}: 73.36 92.0? 85.39 103.98 i09.5i 98.22 95.63 J A Y 135.90 100.29 10..35 101.35 96.9L 93..3 £31.97 10c.35 103.60 93.23 x¢.:3 93.92 58.50 85.68 103.09 96.3u -VERAGE 106.25 102.38 103.8h 98.85 98.2; 95.20 106.19 :0b.?7 c8.9é 83.1L 9-.83 89.90 9c.2a 97.55 99.10 95.99 K 33%} z X 83.33 121.32 121.95 13b.55 8?.11 79.89 57.57 50.18 98.0t 107.:0 108.11 :hn.3? 65.:a 1,,,,. 3*.9: -“iaiv 3 E 53.33 69.99 97.56 ?6.?é 136.32 323.61 9L.69 107.9h 58.82 38.63 91.59 82.59 68.9? 63.99 Bé.§& 86.2i 0 A ‘RAGE 83.33 95.66 109.7é ECSo76 96.?L 98.71 51.3% au.cfi 78..3 33.j9 101.35 113.25 .'.~v 92.3: 89.3% 9;.H8 N 38mL ; X 78.h3 91.60 100.00 122.00 20a.SE 256.62 93.02 126.39 100.00 109.F& 12?.1L 1:6.32 €1.28 A3.6L 113.95 132.38 Y 98.0E 91.80 100.90 132..O 68.15 TOoBB 93.02 7L.25 50.03 hbe26 SL.QS 63.3i Lff CL gu}.L‘ 3? w‘; 6. ~34! .afiik 81w ‘4 ~.. AVERAGE 88.2: 91.80 lOG.CO 130.00 135.35 16L.7€ 93.02 101.35 75.00 ?€.92 105.13 1c3.23 76.92 93.1? 97.c¥:12@.:? 0 38—5 ; X 98.S2 86.32 8h.3b 78.76 7be29 90.93 101932 99978 thaéfi 101.é8 98.33 13;. 3 78.L3 ?3.§3 91063 91.99 9 P Y 98.52 79.32 Bhe3h 103.05 97.3L 98.22 88.33 33.18 91.70 lh“.38 98.31 82.75 112.50 116.59 97 0;.86 O u h“ 5 AVERAGE 98.52 82.82 8h.3E 90.91 85.?1 9ho§8 9b.?1 9lch 93.89 12L.25 98.11 9“ 1A 95.31 95.06 9boh§ 96°93 38—6 : X 125.93 lhl.3h 98.90 95.39 90.91 8 .01 llEeBS 10b.]h 8&903 86.78 ?9.SE 72.03 89.29 86oh0 99.30 98.33 7 Y 103.70 98.h1 131.87 138.2n 106.06 97.?9 93.02 1-3.12 13h.LS 130.17 79.55 92.30 95.31 m > 25 “w .79 16?.65 AVEHAQTlltfil 119.57 1151.38 116.832. 98.158 92.3.12 1024.65 3.03.63 109.91: 108.L’i 79.55 82.22 93075; 93.39 103011103430 AREAuMONTHLI . 5‘ . .4. ()7 AVERAGE 99.23 98.33 95.31;? ARA AVEFAxfi :9.?; 93.37 191.53 99.03 95.28 98.h1 96.9h 95.85 99.0? 101.3u 98~19 98e36 GRAND AVER. lOCoh3 103.16 98.06 98.58 lCl.L6 98a36 101.03 99.86 97.86 95o90 100.03 100.88 99.b3 102.05 99.70 99.82 "‘TIT’iTnflfiluiflt‘fliflfirfiiflitilfflfihflflhjfflfllft’“