1. CCC Marketing Research Report
Executive summary
The study is conducted for the Chicago Chamber of Commerce to help it find
strategies to better serve small businesses in Chicagoland area. Our particular research
focuses on two objectives: determining whether the research results of small businesses’ main
concerns from 2014 are still valid and applicable in 2015 and figuring out which strategies
will best alleviate the concerns that small businesses have in 2015. After conducting various
tests including chi-square, t-tests, regression analyses, and Spearman correlation coefficient
test, it is clear that some relationships in concerns have changed. Most importantly, taxes and
revenues have increased in importance from 2014 to 2015. By helping small businesses work
on their tax and revenue concerns, the Chicago Chamber of Commerce will certainly attain
its goal of better helping the small businesses of Chicago.
Research purpose and objectives
The purpose of this study is to find strategies for the Chicagoland Chamber of
Commerce to better serve the Chicago small business community thereby better assisting
existed members and expanding new members.
The first objective is to check the validity of last year’s research result of main
concerns and needs of small businesses and to determine what they have changed in this year.
The second objective is to determine what strategies small businesses need from Chicagoland
Chamber of Commerce to solve their biggest concerns in 2015.
Research design
The entire research uses exploratory design and descriptive method. In the research,
the primary resource is collected from the 2015 CCC survey (survey questions are designed
by our students). The secondary resource collected from the 2014 survey is also in use for
analysis and comparison. SPSS is used for interpreting the final results.
2. Analysis of data
In the research, four variables are selected for analyzation. Among the four variables,
Concern of Revenues and Concern of Taxes are main concerns for small business in 2014,
which are related to the first objective. Plan to grow and Performance Level are used to help
reach the second objective.
Chi-square statistics offer us a close look on how those independent variables are
related. Our hypothesis is generated based on whether any two variables we picked are
independent or not. Independent refers to no relationship between two variables, while not
independent means some degree of relevance. Among all cross-tabs we conducted, majority
of them don’t show relationship change from 2014 to 2015. The ones with the relationship
changes are Concern of Taxes & Plan to grow, Concern of Revenue & Plan to grow, and
Performance Level & Plan to Grow. Take Concern of Taxes & Plan to grow as an example,
there was no relationship between them in 2014, while in 2015 we saw some degree of
relevance. What it tells us is that small businesses care about taxes more in 2015 than in 2014.
We use T-test under 95% confidence level to see whether the means of business with
different performances are different with respect of concern in tax or revenue. As for tax, the
null hypothesis is that the means of business with different performance levels, somewhat
better or somewhat worse, are the same with respect of tax concern. In 2014, the t values is
0.846 with the significance of 0.389, which is larger than 0.05, so we do not reject the null
hypothesis. In 2015, the t values is -2.268 with the significance of 0.027, which is smaller
than 0.05, so we reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, business with different performance
levels had no different level on tax concern in 2014 but change to have difference in 2015. As
for revenue, the null hypothesis is that the means of business with different performance
levels are the same with respect of revenue concern. In 2014, the t values is -2.798 with the
significance of 0.006, which is smaller than 0.05, so we reject the null hypothesis. In 2015,
3. the t values is -1.042 with the significance of 0.321, which is larger than 0.05, so we do not
reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, business with different performance levels did have
different levels of concern on revenue in 2014 but change to have no difference in 2015,
We also use T-test under 95% confidence level to see whether the means of business
with different performances level are different with respect of willingness to grow business.
The null hypothesis is that the means of business with different performance levels are the
same with respect of willingness to grow business. In 2014, the t values is -3.126 with the
significance of 0.002, which is smaller than 0.05, so we reject the null hypothesis. In 2015,
the t values is -1.482 with the significance of 0.191, which is larger than 0.05, so we do not
reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, business with different performance levels did have
different willingness to grow business in 2014 but change to have no difference in 2015.
Testing Performance Level in the regression analysis using Concern on Revenues
and Concern on Taxes as independent variables, we find that the relationship among the three
variables has been increasing during the last year. Even though the Revenues and Taxes
explain just 11.3% of the variance on Performance Level in 2015, the increase is very
significant: 149% compared with that in 2014. Testing the independent variables individually,
we find out that Concern of Revenues explains more of the variance on Performance Level
than Concern of Tax does, because the R-Square of Revenue, 13.1%, is larger than that of
Tax, which is 2.7%. Looking at the slope of Concern of Revenues, we conclude that one unit
increase in Concern on Revenues leads to 0.572 increase in Performance Level. Moreover,
analyzing the beta of Concern of Revenues and Concern of Taxes on Performance Level, we
find out that Concern of Revenues has the strongest while Concern of Taxes has the weakest
impact on Performance Level in this scenery. Finally, we conclude that there is a linear
relationship between Performance Level and Concern of Revenues but no linear relationship
between Performance Level and Concern of Taxes.
4. We also use Spearman Correlation Coefficient to analyze the relationship between
two variables. Among different combination of variables we tested, we found out that only
Concern of Tax and Performance Level has changed from 2014 to 2015. Our hypothesis is
whether it is significantly different from 0. In 2014, the coefficients of Concern of Tax and
Performance Level was 0.096 with significance of 0.006. The strength fell in none from
range 0 to 0.2. While in 2015, the coefficients of tax and performance is 0.132 with
significance of 0.219. The strength falls in none as well. For both year, the direction are
positive, which means as small business performance is getting better, there will be more
concern on tax. However, there is a difference between two years. According to the statistic
we got, we concluded that Concern of Tax and Performance Level had somehow relationship
in 2014, while there is no relationship between them in 2015.
Results and Conclusion
Overall, it is evident from all of the tests that small businesses’ plan to grow and their
taxes have become greater concerns in 2015. At the same time, the performance level,
revenues/sales growth and willingness to grow have not kept the same relationship in 2015 as
that in 2014. One of the main focuses for the Chicago Chamber of Commerce going forward
should be helping small businesses learn more about taxes that affect them and about how to
deal with taxes, along with helping small businesses grow their revenues or sales.
Recommendations
Based on our results, we generate a series of recommendations for Chicago Chamber
of Commerce. The conclusion has shown that taxes and plan to grow are the most important
factors in our analysis. In order to help small businesses increase revenue and foster the
growth, Chamber could:
● Help small businesses know how to gain access to capital.
5. These years commercial lending has been declining tremendously. For small
businesses, quite a large portion of obstacles they face over the years falls into getting
financed. They need the availability of sufficient intermediate and access to capital for
the long-term to support their operations.
● Help small businesses develop effective marketing campaigns. For small
businesses, most likely they will lay the emphasis on how to get revenue and how to
gain customers, while they might have overlooked the importance of retaining the
existing markets. Chamber, hence could introduce the importance of focusing on both
new markets and current market.
● Provide platform for small businesses to network.
Networking is not an unfamiliar term for entrepreneurs. However, how to benefit
from it is a doubt small businesses tend to have when they want to achieve sustainable
growth. Chamber could use networking platforms to let small businesses know the
dynamics in the industry and know how to create referral networks, how to accelerate
professional development, and so on.
● Provide outside resources to improve Internal Marketing.
To start off at internal marketing, small businesses need to market their business to
the employees. Without passion and belief from their own employees, no business can
strive. Many times, small businesses have overlooked this aspect, as they have
focused on attracting new customers but forget how to get the customers return to
their stores.
When it comes to tax, Chamber could help small businesses:
● Gain knowledge on changing tax laws.
6. Based on our data analysis, small businesses have laid more focus on tax policies in
2015 than in 2014. Laws and policies concerning taxation can be quite difficult.
Chamber definitely could lead more discussion on that.
● Gain knowledge on some qualification of tax exemptions.
Chamber could inform small businesses how to exempt taxes and the advantages of
doing so.
Limitations
There is a limitation in sample size. In 2014, we had about 830 respondents
participating in the survey. However, in the 2015, we only get 88 responses from small
business. Due to the huge difference between two year’s sample sizes, the result in this year
may not represent all small businesses in Chicago area.
12. Y=1.818+.040X1+.572X2+e Y=1.208+.095X1+.668X2+e
Intercept: when tax is 0 the
performance is 1.812
Intercept: since the IVs are different
from 0 the intercept is not meaningful
Regression Analysis-Significant level (p-value)
2014 2015
Constant .000 .014
Revenues .000 .002
Taxes .532 .604
Tax & Performance 2014 2015
Chi-square 33.67 18.14
df 12 10
P-value 0.001 0.043
Conclusion reject reject
Tax & Plan to grow 2014 2015
Chi-square 8.22 10.91
df 4 4
