Mad greeks paper

A MARKETING RESEARCH STUDY:
TO DETERMINE THE BEER PREFERENCES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
Prepared for
Mr. Patrick Coyle, Marketing Research Professor
Mr. James Lee, Owner of Mad Greeks
Prepared by
Julie Goldman

August 2012
Table of Contents/List of illustrations
Section Title Page
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................3
Introduction......................................................................................................................................4
Introduction..........................................................................................................................4
Background..........................................................................................................................4
Secondary Research.............................................................................................................5
Research Objectives.............................................................................................................6
General Objective Questions...............................................................................................6
Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................7
The Research Method......................................................................................................................9
Definition of the Population.................................................................................................9
Population/Sample Size.......................................................................................................9
Development of the Questionnaire......................................................................................9
Data Collection Method.....................................................................................................11
Findings/Results.............................................................................................................................12
Response Rate....................................................................................................................12
Profile of the Sample.........................................................................................................12
Data Summary...................................................................................................................13
Findings.............................................................................................................................17
Conclusions........................................................................................................................19
Recommendations..............................................................................................................23
End Matter.....................................................................................................................................25
Appendix A........................................................................................................................25
Appendix B........................................................................................................................28
Appendix C........................................................................................................................40
Appendix D........................................................................................................................51
Appendix E........................................................................................................................54
2 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This marketing research group that was formed in Patrick Coyle’s Market Research class
at Drexel University undertook a project for Mad Greeks to help determine the beer preferences
of college students in order to help them Mad Greeks manage inventory needs and increase sales.
Our The research questions asked were: what beers are consumers most likely to purchase, does
price impact consumer’s purchasing decisions and does providing an incentive to consumers
cause them to purchase more in quantity and more frequently.
The research method we used was an exploratory survey research study where a
questionnaire was distributed to 65 Drexel University students on or near campus. We asked
students how often they drink beer and how often they purchase it. We also asked them to
indicate how important various qualities of beers were including taste, price, quality, quantity,
alcohol content, light beer and full beer. We also asked them some questions regarding theirse
most recent beer purchases at Mad Greeks and also if they intend to purchase domestic, import
or craft beers in the next month. We then went on to asked consumers how likely they were to
partake in a current Mad Greeks promotion. and Finallythen we asked participants to list their
top three favorite beers. We used a convenience sampling method for this survey.
After viewing the findings, analyzing the data collected, and referencing our findings
with secondary research done that relates to the topic, we concluded that the top favorite beers
were Yuengling, Blue Moon, Victory, Heineken, Dogfish Head. Price sensitive consumers seem
to prefer quantity and light beer and were more likely to purchase domestic beers. Taste and
quality were the highest related rated variables tested and therefore we concluded that consumers
3 | P a g e

are value orientated and want high quality matched with a good price. Finally, the promotions
appear better received by high-spend consumers and those who have less recently made beer
purchases.
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
This marketing research study was undertaken by a groupgroup from taking the course
Marketing Research at Drexel University; taught by Professor Patrick Coyle. The group
consisted of Jenn Cacace, Julie Goldman, Sungwan Jo, Alan Miller, Bryan Pham, and Maddie
Zelicoff. Mad Greeks is a restaurant located in University City, Philadelphia owned by James
Lee. The market research study was focused on exploring the marketing, psychological and
situational variables that influence the behavior behind the beer preferences of consumers. These
consumers are specifically Drexel college students ideally aged 21 years and older, however we
did also survey students under the age of 21. This research was done in an effort to increase the
profitability and to develop a greater understanding of the inventory needs for Mad Greeks.
Background
Mad Greeks, owned by James Lee, is a University City pizzeria that has been in
operation for over 35 years. They pride themselves on providing fresh food made from original
recipes containing genuine ingredients. They provide fast delivery and offer take out beer. Their
menu consists of pizza, sandwiches, burgers, salads, platters, wings and wraps. Mad Greeks sells
popular beers like Bud Light and Miller Light and also a selection of craft beers.
The nature of Mad Greeks competition is fierce as there are three direct competitors
located on the same block, and there are many more in a mile radius. Some of Mad Greeks
competitors are Ed’s Buffalo Wings & Pizza, Savas, Powelton Pizza, California Pizza, Drexel
4 | P a g e

Pizza, and Village Pizza. All run similar operations to Mad Greeks in terms of the menu
provided to consumers. Savas located next door to Mad Greeks also sells beer to their customers.
Secondary Research
By conducting secondary research on beer preferences, it provided us with a basis to
conduct our research on. We used an article from Mintel, a market research firm that provided us
with information on trends in beer choices and volume consumption. The article stated that the
amount of a particular type of beer that a person drinks during a 30-day time period has changed
over the past five years. Specifically “During February 2010- March 2011, consumers drank
more imported beer (5.6 drinks), regular domestic beer (5.1 drinks), microbrew beer (3.2 drinks),
and low-alcohol/no-alcohol beer (3.2 drinks) per month.”1
This research supports our findings.
The most important information that we gathered from this secondary source is that the imported
beer sector, specifically Corona and Heineken, has been increasingly growing by 15.5%. Most
importantly, these import companies have moved to developing craft beers, which have become
increasingly popular over the past years. “Microbrews/craft beers are a small but rapidly growing
segment of the beer category.” Craft beers have moved so far into the mainstream that some
national companies have entered the category. For example, Blue Moon was developed by Coors
in 1995.
Using the same article, we gathered information regarding beer purchasing behavior as
well. The key points that the article suggested was that consumers are usually very loyal to the
brands of beer they consume. However, consumers ages 21-24 have different purchasing
behaviors. These are people that are most likely to prefer a wide variety when shopping for beer.
1
Garima Goel-lal (November 2011). Beer: The Consumer - US - November 2011. Retrieved from
http://academic.mintel.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/display/553330/#atom0.
5 | P a g e

This is obviously because that is the age where adults are not as experienced and are
experimenting with different types of beer. The article also said that, “since they have not yet
reached their earning potential, they are also most inclined (42%) to wait for sales promotions.”
This helped us with our research tremendously. It provided us with an understanding of what to
look for during our researching process.results our market research would provide.
Research Objectives
The main research objective of this study is to determine which brands of beer Mad
Greeks should stock and the quantities they should stock them in. We wanted to determine the
most popular beers, and if there are any beers Mad Greek doesn’t sell that they should begin to
base off the consumer preferences, which we gathered from our questionnaire. We also wanted
to determine what specifically motivates college students to buy specific types of beer. The
qualities that we looked at include price, taste, alcohol content, quantity, quality, light beer and
full beer. Finally, we wanted to determine if an incentive of some sort would entice consumers to
make purchases at Mad Greeks more frequently.
General Objective Questions
We based our questionnaire on these specific research objective questions, which
encompassed our main research objective goals. The first question was about what beers are
consumers most likely to purchase. This question specifically helped us understand the beer
brand and type of preferences for college students. This question supported our conclusion on
what beers Mad Greeks should stock more of in their inventory.
The second question was whether prices impact consumer's purchasing decisions. This
question helped us understand whether price matters when college students make a beer
purchasing decision. It provided us with insight on what is most important for college students
6 | P a g e

when they make that choice, whether its price or not. Mad Greeks could than adjust their prices
based on our findings.
Lastly, our third question was about providing an incentive to consumers that can cause
them to purchase more in quantity and more frequently. This information helped us determine if
Mad Greeks should provide more or less promotions and if college students would value them.
By analyzing this information we were able to decide which promotions are favored and if
college students are even aware of them. Therefore, Mad Greeks could adjust its promotion
strategy according to our conclusions.
Limitations of the Study
The most obvious limitation that we faced is our relative inexperience in designing and
executing full-scale research projects. We worked to reduce the effect of this limitation by
working closely with Professor Coyle who is very experienced in this field and provided good
insights for managing the project. Another major limitation was the time allotted to complete the
project. We were tied to a 10-week timeline for honing the necessary skills for marketing
research and simultaneously executing this research for Mad Greeks. We do believe however
that the combined education and application of these skills vastly improved the quality of our
research, even done in such a short time.
Aside from these general limitations, we also had some concerns about our sample, given
that it was a convenience sample gathered mostly on or close to the premises of Mad Greeks and
skewed heavily toward male respondents. The high ratio of male to female respondents (3:1)
may be representative of the college-age beer drinking population that Mad Greeks draws
customers from, since beer consumption generally skews towards male. However, further
research is necessary to confirm this. Also, given that we intended to survey for the opinions and
7 | P a g e

preferences of beer drinking consumers that were close enough to reasonably be customer for the
establishment, a convenience sample was a fairly natural approach. However, because our survey
collection was hyper-localized to on or near the premises of Mad Greeks, our sample may
include a higher number of people that are already being satisfied by the beer service provided
there than actually exists in the population.
8 | P a g e

THE RESEARCH METHOD
Definition of the Population
Our research team used a convenience sampling method was used when distributing the
questionnaires. The surveys had male and female respondents; however 75% of the respondents
were male. This differs from a statistic offered from Drexel University stating that population to
have is an even split of 50% males and 50% females. The individuals surveyed were all Drexel
students but the only qualification to participate was that they were 18 years of age or older.
Population/Sample Size
The targeted sample size was 50 participants out of approximately 15,000 potential
undergraduate students and 1,300 potential graduate students. The students were selected by
frequenting populated locations on campus such as the library, Starbucks in the Pearlstein
building, and on Lancaster Walk. A total of 65 surveys were handed out and only one had to be
discounted because of incompleteness.
Development of the Questionnaire
The questionnaire for Mad Greeks Pizzeria was designed to clearly answer our research
objectives. Our rough drafts was very lengthy and took a few tries to cut out the questions that
were unclear orand offered littleno help in determining answers to our research objectives. We
ended up with a three-page survey that had clear, easy to follow, and insightful questions. The
survey followed a careful order and utilized mostly metric questions.
The questions asked in our survey spanned many different topics focusing on beer
preferences and awareness of Mad Greeks Pizzeria’s selections and specials. The only screening
question we asked prior to giving the survey was the participant’s age to make sure they were 18
9 | P a g e

or older. The survey started with warm up questions about the participants drinking habits. The
first question was how often they drink per week, a natural metrica hybrid natural metric and
categorical question. The second question was how much they spend per week, also a natural
metrichybrid natural metric and categorical question.
The next set of questions were transition questions and were more specific to Mad Greeks
Pizzeria, asking how long it has been since their last purchase from Mad Greeks, a natural hybrid
natural metric and categorical question. The next question was regarding what type of beers they
have recently purchased there, which was a categorical multiple-choicedual-choice
questioncategorical question, with choices including: Domestic, Imports, and Crafts. The last
question in this section was about the quantity they normally buy in when purchasing from there,
another categorical multiple-choice question.
The next set of questions was to determine the participant’s preferences when drinking
and what they look for when purchasing beer, these were some of the more complicated
questions. These questions asked how likely they would be to purchase domestic, imported and
craft beers in the next month, a synthetic metric question where the answer choices were placed
on a five point scale (very unlikely, unlikely, neutral, likely, unlikely). The survey also asked to
the participant to determine how important certain attributes are when purchasing beers such as
taste, quantity, price, fullness, and alcohol content, also all on synthetic metric scales where the
answer choices were placed on a five point scale (very unimportant, unimportant, neutral,
important, very important).
The last set of questions was about promotions, which were more complicated. One
question about whether the participant was aware of any promotions, a dual choice categorical
question. Following this were two questions conditional upon a positive indication of promotion
10 | P a g e

awareness. The first was aided open-ended question asking which ones they were aware of; the
second asked how many times they have purchased beer under any of the promotions in the past
month which was another hybrid natural metric and categorical question. The section ended
with a question on how likely they would be to purchase beer with a variety of promotions from
very unlikely to likelyvery unlikely, unlikely, neutral, likely, and very unlikely, a synthetic
metric question.
Finally the survey ended with three general questions about the participant’s three
favorite beers in order, which was an open-ended question;, their age, which was a natural metric
question; and their gender, a dual choice categorical question. (See Appendix A for survey.)
Data Collection Method
The questionnaires were distributed mainly on campus, given out at popular spots
including the Hagerty Library, Lancaster Walk, and the Starbucks in Pearlstein. All six of our
group members were responsible for giving out at least 15 surveys in different locations on
campus in order to make it as random as possible. The Starbucks seemed to be the easiest place
to get participants to take the survey, which we attributed to the fact that people mainly go there
in between class to grab coffee and don’t have much else to do. We didn’t have anyone refuse to
take the survey but in general people were more approachable outside of the library. Our goal
was to get at least 50 surveys, which we accomplished.
11 | P a g e

FINDINGS/RESULTS
Response Rate
As a team, the Mad Greeks questionnaire was distributed 65 times around campus,
mainly through convenience sampling around the Mad Greeks pizzeria and Drexel University’s
campus. We estimated a response rate to be about 4 out of 5. We assumed that there would be
some respondents who would directly ignore or refuse to take our survey due to the lengthiness
and repetitive nature of the survey. To our surprise, our survey did not experience any resistance
and each respondent that we asked to survey did so without question. We attribute this high
response rate due to the content of the survey and the demographic that we targeted. Because our
respondents are actively interestedbeing involved in the content of our survey (beer), it was easy
for our target audience to relate to and fill out our survey with ease. Our questions were
structured so that the most common beer choicechoices were available, so respondents did not
have to put much thought or calculation to their answers. This was definitely an advantage that
we held compared to the other groups.
Profile of the Samples
Our sample mainly consisted of our demographic, college students, both male and
female, ages 18-21+26. As a team, we targeted not only passersby of Mad Greeks but also
students on campus our friends that fit our target audiencethe target market. The students that we
surveyed were mostly males at about 75%, versus females which made up the last 25% of our
sample. Although we had hoped to survey a balanced 50%/50% of male and female, after
analysis we came to the conclusion that because males typically drink and buy more beer than
females, this would be a more accurate sample.
12 | P a g e

Our sample was very diverse. From Greek life members, unaffiliated, friends and
randomly selected members, we effectively reached all aspects of Drexel’s student body.
Although in the United States, only people who are 21 can purchase alcohol legally, we
recognized that a lot of underage students can still get away with purchasing alcohol,alcohol;
legality was not our main concern. The only age limitation that we enforced was a minimum of
18 years of age, due to the fact that we would need to obtain permission from the guardian of the
minor. Our results were surprising diverse; from strictly no beer consumption during the
week/weekend to heavy drinkers who were exposed to beer 4+ times a week. We believe this
helped the integrity of our survey results, as every college student does not have the same beer
drinking patterns.
After thorough research and analysis, we believe that our team has accurately recorded
the consumer behavior of our target market. With our wide range of participants and the ease in
which our surveys were completed, there was little room for error both in the data collection
process and results.
Data Summary
The data that we collected and analyzed allowed us to draw several conclusions. We were
aiming to reach a minimum of 50 total survey participants for our market research. We ended up
finding 64 total participants, 25% were female and 75% were male. The median age was 21.7
years old. We had a respondent rate of 98.5%, and the only survey we had to throw out was from
one person who said that they did not drink beer, which was the basis of our survey. We believe
that our respondent rate was so high because of our survey topic of beer, which people seem very
easy to open up and answer questions about.
13 | P a g e

First we asked our participants to see what types of beers that they would purchase. When
asked the question; how likely you are to purchase a domestic beer in the next month, 10.9% said
very unlikely, 7.8% said unlikely, 14.1% said neutral, 14.1% said likely, and 53.1% said very
likely with an average of 3.9 therefore the target market is likely to purchase domestic beer in the
next month. When asked the question; how likely you are to purchase an import beer in the next
month, 7.8% said very unlikely, 12.5% said unlikely, 26.6% said neutral, 25.0% said likely, and
28.1% said very likely with an average of 3.5 therefore the target market is in between neutral
and likely to purchase import beer in the next month. When asked the question; how likely you
are to purchase an craft beer in the next month, 17.2% said very unlikely, 9.4% said unlikely,
26.6% said neutral, 8.8% said likely, and 28.1% said very likely with an average of 3.3 therefore
the target market is more neutral than likely to purchase craft beer in the next month. According
to our findings, our participants were more likely to purchase domestic beer (53.1%) rather than
import (28.1%) or craft beer (28.1%).
Then we compared qualities of beer such as taste, price, and alcohol content. When asked
the question; how important is taste when purchasing a beer, 4.7% said very unimportant, 3.1%
said unimportant, 18.8% said neutral, 21.9% said important, and 51.6% said very important with
an average of 4.1 therefore taste is important to the target market. When asked the question; how
important is price when purchasing a beer, 1.6% said very unimportant, 6.3% said unimportant,
20.3% said neutral, 25.0% said important, and 46.9% said very important with an average of 4.1
therefore price is important to the target market. When asked the question; how important is
alcohol content when purchasing a beer, 3.1% said very unimportant, 12.5% said unimportant,
28.1% said neutral, 26.6% said important, and 29.7% said very important with an average of 3.7
therefore alcohol content is more important than neutral to the target market. According to our
14 | P a g e

findings, our participants found taste (51.6%) to be the most important followed by price
(46.9%) and finally alcohol content (29.7%).
Then we compared quantity of beer vs. the quality of beer. When asked the question; how
important is quantity when purchasing a beer, 3.1% said very unimportant, 10.9% said
unimportant, 29.7% said neutral, 31.3% said important, and 25.0% said very important with an
average of 3.6 therefore quantity is more important than neutral to the target market. When asked
the question; how important is quality when purchasing a beer, 4.7% said very unimportant,
9.4% said unimportant, 15.6% said neutral, 28.1% said important, and 42.2% said very important
with an average of 3.9 therefore quality is important to the target market. According to our
findings, participants found quality (42.2%) to be more important than quantity (25.0%).
When asked the question; how important light beer is when purchasing a beer, 9.4% said
very unimportant, 14.1% said unimportant, 26.6% said neutral, 28.1% said important, and 21.9%
said very important with an average of 3.4 therefore the target market is more neutral to light
beers. When asked the question; how important is full beer when purchasing a beer, 10.9% said
very unimportant, 14.1% said unimportant, 31.3% said neutral, 34.4% said important, and 9.4%
said very important with an average of 3.2 therefore the target market is more netural to full
beers. According to our findings, our participants are more likely purchase light beer than full
beer.
When asked the question; are you aware of any promotions currently offered at Mad
Greeks, 93.8% said no and 6.3% said yes. Three respondents (75%) knew of the Meek Millz
promotion and one respondent (25%) knew of the $6 for 6 pounders promotion. Of the four
respondents who knew of promotions two (50%) had not purchase under this promotion in the
15 | P a g e

past month, one (25%) had purchase 3-4 times under this promotion in the past month and one
(25%)had purchase 5 times or more under this promotion in the past month.
The survey then went on to ask respondents about the likelihood of them purchasing
under ofur different promotions in the next month. We asked respondents to please indicate how
likely they are to purchase a Yuengling Light 12pok for $12.00, 18.8% said very unlikely, 9.4%
said unlikely, 25% said neutral, 25% said likely and 21.9% said very likely with an average of
3.2 therefore the respondents are more neutral than likely to use this promotion. We then asked
respondents to please indicate how likely they are to purchase a 6 pack of Budewiser or Miller
plus wings or a cheesesteak for $11.00, 17.2% said very unlikely, 9.4% said unlikely, 18.8% said
neutral, 26.6% said likely, and 28.1% said very likely with an average of 3.4 therefore
respondents are more neutral than likely to use this promotion.
Then we asked respondents to indicate how likely they are to purchase a Budweiser 16oz
can 6 pack for $6.50, 21.9% said very unlikely, 12.5% said unlikely, 26.6% said neutral, 20.3%
said likely, and 18.8% said very likely with an average of 3.0 therefore respondents were neutral
to this promotion. We then asked respondents to please indicate how likely they are to purchase a
Miller High Life 16oz can 6 pack for $5.99, 14.1% said very unlikely, 17.2% said unlikely,
31.3% said neutral, 17.2% said likely, and 20.3% said very likely with an average of 3.1
therefore respondents are neutral to this promotion. Respondents seemed neutral to the
promotions overall with a slight preference to the promotion including food.
We then asked participants to rank their top three favorite beers. The respondents top
favorite beers were Blue Moon (13.1%), Yuengling (9.8%), Heineken (8.2%), Sam Adams
(6.6%) and Victory (6.6%). For participants’ second favorite beer the most frequently mentioned
were Blue Moon (12.1%), Yuengling (12.1%), Dogfish Head (6.9%), and Heineken (6.9%). For
16 | P a g e

participants’ third favorite beer the most frequently mentioned were Yuengling (12.1%), Corona
(6.9%), and Victory (6.9%).
Findings
After analysis and calculation, it was evident that there were strong correlations
between a number of different variables. Our questions specifically asked about beer preferences,
price impact, quality, quantity purchased and promotions offered. The highest correlation that
was recorded was the importance of taste and quality. Taste correlated with quality at .715 with a
significance of 0.00. 25 out of 64 (39%) of our respondents said that taste as well as quality was
very important in their beer decision. 12 out of 64 said that taste and quality were important
while only 1 person categorized them as very unimportant.
Our second highest correlation was price versus quality, with a correlation of .473 and a
significance of 0.00. 14 out of our 64 respondents reported that price and quantity was very
important, while 10 out of 64 categorized them as important. It is safe to assume from these
results, that price and quality were the biggest deciding factors to consider when purchasing beer.
This directly translates to value seeking behavior. Value is defined as quality/price. Our target
market doesn’t feel the need to pay a premium price for large quantities of beer (24+pack)
because of Mad Greeks convenient location. As a result, our sample typically uses Mad Greeks
as a quick fix for temporary beer consumption, typically 6 packs, and going to a beer distributer
for anything more. Mad Greeks has successfully established their presence on campus as a
convenient place to purchase quick beer while satisfying a wide range of tastes from domestics,
imports, and to even craft beer.
Furthermore, we asked recipients, on a scale from 1-5, 1 being least important and 5
being most important, on various beer preferences. The highest values that we recorded were
17 | P a g e

4.1/5, when we asked how important taste and price was when purchasing beer. Our lowest value
that we recorded 3.2/5 was the importance of full versus light versus craft beer. Although it may
seem like a low number, in perspective, a response of 3 is categorized as “neutral”; neither
important nor not important. We can assume from these results that taste, quality, price, domestic
beer preferences and alcohol content are the deciding factors when purchasing beer.
On average, about 39.1% of our sample said that they drink beer 4 times or more per
week. I found thisThis statistic is to be particularly interesting because it seems to suggest that
college students are very frequent beer drinkers. At first glance, 39% seemed very inflated. But
after second thought, because our sample was 75% male, it makes a lot more sense. I We believe
if our sample were evenly split 50/50 male to female, then our statistic would be drasticallymight
be less. 42.2% of our sample reported that they spend on average $20-$40 per week on beer. WeI
thought this was a very safe number, considering bar tabs can range anywhere depending on the
venue/what you order. Generally, I we think college students spend more than $20-$40 per week
if they are drinking 4+ times a week, but this question could have been interpreted as strictly beer
purchases, not including wine or spirits.
The last section of our survey highlighted the promotions that Mad Greeks offers for beer
and food discounts. On average, our sample reported about 3.0-3.4 when asked what they felt
about the promotions currently offered at Mad Greeks. As stated before, 3 was the neutral
midpoint on the 1-5 scale. Although our respondents didn’t feel strongly about the promotions,
they didn’t have necessary have negative feelings toward the promotions either. This is largely
due to the lack of knowledge of the promotions itself. 93% of our sample said that they did not
know about the promotions Mad Greeks offered. This is aThis should be a red flag for Mad
Greeks as it was the most lop sided statistic that we recorded. Across the board, it was obvious
18 | P a g e

what the most popular beers were Blue Moon, Yuengling, Victory and Heineken.n were the top
3 beers in all categories. All of these beersthree of them were listed as highly as eithertheir first,
second and third favorite beer. consistently floating around the top three spots.
Interestingly, the intent of purchasing craft beer only correlates with the older sample.
This makes sense because the older students (21+) are typically more motivated to try new craft
beers while the younger sample will usually stick to cheap, domestic, high quantity beer
purchases. Alcohol content also correlated with quantity at .491. This is evident when purchasing
multiple 40oz high gravity (alcohol content) beers that are very popular at Mad Greeks. Overall,
our results were very comprehensive and definitive. There weren’t any results that seemed too
unrealistic to be accounted for. Our sample was an ideal size for the results that we needed and
we feel that our sample was accurately represented. (See Appendix B, C, D, & E for tables and
graphs on all our findings.)
Conclusions
For our first objective we wanted to determine what beers consumers are most likely to
purchase. In order to answer this objective we asked participants to write in their top three
favorite beers. For participants’ top favorite beer the most frequently mentioned were Blue Moon
(13.1%), Yuengling (9.8%), Heineken (8.2%), Sam Adams (6.6%) and Victory (6.6%). For
participants’ second favorite beer the most frequently mentioned were Blue Moon (12.1%),
Yuengling (12.1%), Dogfish Head (6.9%), and Heineken (6.9%). For participants’ third favorite
beer the most frequently mentioned were Yuengling (12.1%), Corona (6.9%), and Victory
(6.9%). After adding up the frequencies for all beers (from 1st
, 2nd
, and 3rd
) it was determined that
19 | P a g e

the top overall most popular beers were Yuengling (11.3%), Blue Moon (9.6%), Victory (5.6%),
Heineken (5.1%), and Dogfish Head (4.5%).
For the second objective we wanted to determine if price impacted consumer’s
purchasing decisions. To explore this objective we used a number of questions to help us find an
accurate answer. After looking at the descriptive statistics for the question that asked participants
to indicate how important price was when they purchased beer, we discovered that 71.9%
thought that price was either important (25%) or very important (46.9%). Only 7.8% thought
price was unimportant (1.6%) or very unimportant (6.3%). As the target market consists of
college students, who are naturally price sensitive buyers, these statistics aren’t unsurprising.
When running the correlations between price and other variables in our survey there were
three other qualities that showed a significant relationship with price. Price was correlated with
quantity at .473 with a very high significance (.000). This means that the more price sensitive
buyers are they are going to look for more quantity in their purchases. This is another common
sense conclusion, as most buyers want the most they can get for their money, especially
consumers that are extremely price sensitive. Another quality that correlated with price, although
less so than quantity, was a preference for light beer at .292 with a goodhigh significance (.019).
This seems to suggest that more price sensitive buyers will look for light versions of beer.
Finally, price was highly correlated with participants who intend to purchase domestic beer in
the next month at .343 with very high significance (.006). It seems that price sensitive buyers are
likely to purchase domestic beer over import or craft beer. All of this data suggests that the
average price sensitive buyer is a domestic beer drinker who looks for quantity and light beer
over other qualities.
20 | P a g e

However it is important to note that participants didn’t find price to be the most important
quality they look for when buying beer. 73.4% of participants indicated that taste was important
(21.9%) or very important (51.6%) when purchasing beer. Also 70.3% of participants indicated
that quality was important (28.1%) or very important (42.2%) when purchasing beer. These two
variables produced the highest correlation in our study at .715 with a very high significance
(.000). So while price is importanvitalt it’s also importantimportant to note that it isn’t the only
variable that consumers place importance on.
For the third and final research objective we investigated was whether or not promotional
incentives cause people to purchase in greater quantity or frequency. This objective relied on a
series of current and long-standing promotions offered by Mad Greeks, for which respondents
were asked to rate their likelihood to purchase in the next month on a scale from one to five; one
being very unlikely and five being very likely. We looked at the correlations found between
these ratings and questions such as the quantities purchased at Mad Greeks and time since last
purchase, along with general categories like average weekly beer expense and consumption.
Only one promotion in our survey correlated to the quantities purchased in the
respondents’ last visit to Mad Greeks, which involved a choice between two food items paired
with a choice between two six-packs for a special price. This led to the conclusion that customers
buying in larger quantities might welcome having food to accompany it, but since we did not
survey our sample for their food purchase habits when purchasing beer as well, we cannot
provide further reinforcement to strengthen this conclusion.
Due to the positive correlations between frequency of beer consumption in a week and
the promotions for a domestic six-pack or twelve-pack, we conclude that quantity promotions
may be more effective with more frequent drinkers. While this conclusion does reinforce a
21 | P a g e

common assumption, it is based on correlations on the lower end of significance (nearly .04) and
with relatively low correlation coefficients (.26). More research would be prudent to further
investigate this assumption, with the possibility of challenging its generally applied validity.
As the strongest correlations related to this objective were found between three domestic six-
pack promotions (including the one paired with food) and the average weekly beer expense per
week, we conclude that customers spending more on beer are also more susceptible to price
incentives when purchasing. Though this doesn’t speak directly to quantity or frequency of
purchase as stated in the objective, we do believe it is a relevant conclusion. Value of purchase
and the derivative customer lifetime value are naturally associated benefits of promotional
incentives, to the point that their lack of inclusion highlights a slight oversight in the design of
this research objective.
Finally, based on the significant positive correlation between the likelihood of purchasing
domestic six-pack promotions and the length of time since last beer purchase at Mad Greeks, we
conclude that people who are not in the top segment (less than 1 week since purchase) are also
potentially more responsive to promotions. This does not determine a causal relationship
between incentives and purchase frequency, but does suggests the possibility that people who do
not currently purchase beer at Mad Greeks on a regular basis may be encouraged to do so
through enticing promotions. The correlation between these two questions does weaken as the
respondents have gone longer since purchasing beer there (more than 3 months), though this is
also related to lower weekly consumption.
Our research has shown significant relationships between promotional incentives and the
factors of purchase price and quantity. Though none of these conclusions serve to show causal
22 | P a g e

relationships between these factors as stated in the research objective, they are highly relevant in
justifying further investigation into the subject.
Recommendations
We suggest that Mad Greeks keep stock of and perhaps consider providing promotions
for consumers based on the most popular beers we found in our survey which included
Yuengling, Blue Moon, Victory, Heineken, and DogFish Head. Currently, Mad Greeks is only
providing promotions on Yuengling, but for the light variety. Out of all the above beer brands we
suggest that Mad Greeks try a promotion for Blue Moon because our participants have shown
that they are value orientated (want a high quality product for a good price). By providing a
promotion for Blue Moon we believe that Mad Greeks will see an increase in purchases from
both existing and new value orientated customers.
After concluding that price is correlated with quantity, light beer and the intent to
purchase domestic beer we believe that Mad Greeks should continue with their current
promotions for Yuengling Light, Budweiser and Miller High Life, but perhaps considerst trying
out promotions that include the light versions of Budweiser and Miller. Mad Greeks might also
wish to try promotions with different quantity sizes since consumers seem to be value orientated.
Testing more 40oz or twelve pack promotions might be beneficial to see if an increase in sales
and revenue occurs.
Since we concluded that people who spend more on beer per week are also more
susceptible to promotions, we suggest that Mad Greeks continue their everyday promotions.
23 | P a g e

Due to the very low awareness of their promotions among the people we surveyed, we
recommend that Mad Greeks increase the marketing of their promotions. Currently they
advertise these incentives on a board directly out front and occasionally special promotions are
listed in the window. Increased awareness could also attract customers who have not recently
purchased beer there, based on our conclusion that these people are more responsive to
promotions.
We also suggest they continue to offer their everyday promotions in addition to other
specials. We concluded that these promotions could attract the consumers who spend more on
beer per week. This is a highly valuable set of customers to any establishment that sells beer;
continuing to suit their needs is necessary for retaining and expanding their patronage. This
recommendation would preferably be carried out in conjunction with improvement of promotion
marketing. While some of those high-spend consumers may already be purchasing at Mad
Greeks, the enhanced promotion awareness could allow Mad Greeks to capture more of this
spending than they currently do.
Finally, we recommend that Mad Greeks do more research to help further investigate
some of the findings we discovered. They should consider surveying consumers on potential new
promotions to see if they have any viability in the market place. They might also want to
consider doing a market research survey on their advertising to find the best avenues to introduce
consumers to new promotions.
24 | P a g e

END MATTER
Appendix A
Do you like beer? Mad Greeks wants to know!
You can help Mad Greeks improve their service to customers like you by taking the time to
answer all of the questions on this short survey. This survey is completely confidential. Only the
researchers will have access to your responses, and those responses will not be associated with
you personally in any way.
Surveyors: Jenn Cacace, Julie Goldman, Sungwan Jo, Charlie K, Alan Miller, Bryan Pham,
Maddie Zelicoff
On average, how many times do you drink beer per week?
0
1
2
3
4 or more
On average, how much do you spend on beer per week?
less than $10
$10 - $20
$20 - $40
$40 - $60
more than $60
How long has it been since you last purchased beer from Mad Greeks?
less than 1 week
1 - 4 weeks
1 - 3 months
more than 3 months
In the past month, which of the following types of beers have you purchased at Mad Greeks?
Please check all that apply
Domestic (i.e. Budweiser, Miller, Coors)
25 | P a g e

Import (i.e Heineken, Dos Equis, Stella Artois)
Craft (i.e Victory, Dogfish Head, Rogue)
The last time you purchased beer at Mad Greeks, what quantities did you purchase in? Please
check all that apply
single beers
40oz beers
6 packs
12 packs
24 packs or greater
Please indicate how likely you are to purchase the following types of beers in the next month.
very
unlikely
neutral very likely
Domestic
Import
Craft
Please indicate how important the following attributes are to you when purchasing beer.
very
unimportant
neutral
very
important
Taste
Price
alcohol content
Quantity
Quality
light beers
full beers
Are you aware of any beer promotions currently offered at Mad Greeks?
Yes
26 | P a g e

No
If so, which one(s)?
If yes, how many times have you purchased beer under one of the promotions in the past month?
0
1-2
3-4
5 or more
Please indicate how likely you are to purchase beer with one of these promotions in the next
month.
very
unlikely
neutral very likely
Yuengling Light 12pk
bottles for $12.99
6pk of Budweiser or
Miller High Life,
PLUS Buffalo Wings
or a Cheesesteak for
$11.00
Budweiser 16oz can
6pk for $6.50
Miller High Life 16oz
can 6pk for $5.99
Please list your top 3 favorite beer brands in order.
1.________________ 2._______________ 3.__________________
Please indicate your age in years. __________
Please indicate your gender.
Male Female
27 | P a g e

Appendix B
Frequency Table
Spendweek
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 15 23.4 23.4 23.4
2 17 26.6 26.6 50.0
3 27 42.2 42.2 92.2
4 4 6.3 6.3 98.4
5 1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
Drinkweek
Valid
0 4 6.3 6.3 6.3
1 4 6.3 6.3 12.7
2 14 21.9 22.2 34.9
3 16 25.0 25.4 60.3
4 25 39.1 39.7 100.0
Total 63 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 64 100.0
Lastpurchase
Valid
1 20 31.3 31.3 31.3
2 17 26.6 26.6 57.8
3 5 7.8 7.8 65.6
4 22 34.4 34.4 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
28 | P a g e

DomesticMG
Valid
0 18 28.1 36.0 36.0
1 32 50.0 64.0 100.0
Total 50 78.1 100.0
Total 64 100.0
ImportMG
Valid
0 34 53.1 68.0 68.0
1 16 25.0 32.0 100.0
Total 50 78.1 100.0
Total 64 100.0
CraftMG
Valid
0 26 40.6 52.0 52.0
1 24 37.5 48.0 100.0
Total 50 78.1 100.0
Total 64 100.0
SingleMG
Valid
0 45 70.3 84.9 84.9
1 8 12.5 15.1 100.0
Total 53 82.8 100.0
Total 64 100.0
29 | P a g e

40ozMG
Valid
0 40 62.5 75.5 75.5
1 13 20.3 24.5 100.0
Total 53 82.8 100.0
Total 64 100.0
6pkMG
Valid
0 27 42.2 50.9 50.9
1 26 40.6 49.1 100.0
Total 53 82.8 100.0
Total 64 100.0
12pkMG
Valid
0 38 59.4 71.7 71.7
1 15 23.4 28.3 100.0
Total 53 82.8 100.0
Total 64 100.0
24pkMG
Valid
0 49 76.6 92.5 92.5
1 4 6.3 7.5 100.0
Total 53 82.8 100.0
Total 64 100.0
30 | P a g e

NxtMonDom
Valid
1 7 10.9 10.9 10.9
2 5 7.8 7.8 18.8
3 9 14.1 14.1 32.8
4 9 14.1 14.1 46.9
5 34 53.1 53.1 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
NxtMonImp
Valid
1 5 7.8 7.8 7.8
2 8 12.5 12.5 20.3
3 17 26.6 26.6 46.9
4 16 25.0 25.0 71.9
5 18 28.1 28.1 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
NextMonCrft
Valid
1 11 17.2 17.2 17.2
2 6 9.4 9.4 26.6
3 17 26.6 26.6 53.1
4 12 18.8 18.8 71.9
5 18 28.1 28.1 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
Taste
Valid
1 3 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 2 3.1 3.1 7.8
3 12 18.8 18.8 26.6
4 14 21.9 21.9 48.4
5 33 51.6 51.6 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
31 | P a g e

Price
Valid
1 1 1.6 1.6 1.6
2 4 6.3 6.3 7.8
3 13 20.3 20.3 28.1
4 16 25.0 25.0 53.1
5 30 46.9 46.9 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
Alcoholcont
Valid
1 2 3.1 3.1 3.1
2 8 12.5 12.5 15.6
3 18 28.1 28.1 43.8
4 17 26.6 26.6 70.3
5 19 29.7 29.7 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
Quantity
Valid
1 2 3.1 3.1 3.1
2 7 10.9 10.9 14.1
3 19 29.7 29.7 43.8
4 20 31.3 31.3 75.0
5 16 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
Quality
Valid
1 3 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 6 9.4 9.4 14.1
3 10 15.6 15.6 29.7
4 18 28.1 28.1 57.8
5 27 42.2 42.2 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
32 | P a g e

LightBeer
Valid
1 6 9.4 9.4 9.4
2 9 14.1 14.1 23.4
3 17 26.6 26.6 50.0
4 18 28.1 28.1 78.1
5 14 21.9 21.9 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
FullBeer
Valid
1 7 10.9 10.9 10.9
2 9 14.1 14.1 25.0
3 20 31.3 31.3 56.3
4 22 34.4 34.4 90.6
5 6 9.4 9.4 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
Promotions
Valid
0 60 93.8 93.8 93.8
1 4 6.3 6.3 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
Which
Valid
60 93.8 93.8 93.8
$6 for 6 pounders 1 1.6 1.6 95.3
Meek Mill!! 1 1.6 1.6 96.9
Meek Millz tix 1 1.6 1.6 98.4
Miller Lite promotion for Meek Mills tickets 1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
33 | P a g e

HowManyPro
Valid
0 2 3.1 50.0 50.0
1 1 1.6 25.0 75.0
3 1 1.6 25.0 100.0
Total 4 6.3 100.0
Total 64 100.0
Yuengling
Valid
1 12 18.8 18.8 18.8
2 6 9.4 9.4 28.1
3 16 25.0 25.0 53.1
4 16 25.0 25.0 78.1
5 14 21.9 21.9 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
BuffaloWings
Valid
1 11 17.2 17.2 17.2
2 6 9.4 9.4 26.6
3 12 18.8 18.8 45.3
4 17 26.6 26.6 71.9
5 18 28.1 28.1 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
Budweiser
Valid
1 14 21.9 21.9 21.9
2 8 12.5 12.5 34.4
3 17 26.6 26.6 60.9
4 13 20.3 20.3 81.3
5 12 18.8 18.8 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
34 | P a g e

MillerHighLife
Valid
1 9 14.1 14.1 14.1
2 11 17.2 17.2 31.3
3 20 31.3 31.3 62.5
4 11 17.2 17.2 79.7
5 13 20.3 20.3 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
35 | P a g e

Top1
Valid
3 4.7 4.7 4.7
Becks 1 1.6 1.6 6.3
Blue Moon 8 12.5 12.5 18.8
Bud Light 3 4.7 4.7 23.4
Bud Light Lime 2 3.1 3.1 26.6
Budweiser 2 3.1 3.1 29.7
Carlsberg 1 1.6 1.6 31.3
Coors 1 1.6 1.6 32.8
Coors Light 2 3.1 3.1 35.9
Corona 1 1.6 1.6 37.5
Dogfish Head 3 4.7 4.7 42.2
German Beer 1 1.6 1.6 43.8
Guiness 1 1.6 1.6 45.3
Heineken 5 7.8 7.8 53.1
Hoegarden 1 1.6 1.6 54.7
Hurriance 1 1.6 1.6 56.3
IPA 1 1.6 1.6 57.8
Keystone Light 1 1.6 1.6 59.4
Lambic 1 1.6 1.6 60.9
Long Trail 1 1.6 1.6 62.5
Magic Hat #9 1 1.6 1.6 64.1
Miller 1 1.6 1.6 65.6
Natural 1 1.6 1.6 67.2
Sam Adams 4 6.3 6.3 73.4
Shock Top 1 1.6 1.6 75.0
Sierra Nevada 1 1.6 1.6 76.6
St Pauli Girl 1 1.6 1.6 78.1
Stella 1 1.6 1.6 79.7
Two Hearted Ale 1 1.6 1.6 81.3
Victory 4 6.3 6.3 87.5
Weinhenstefner 1 1.6 1.6 89.1
Yards 1 1.6 1.6 90.6
Yuengling 6 9.4 9.4 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
36 | P a g e

Top2
Valid
6 9.4 9.4 9.4
Beeks 1 1.6 1.6 10.9
Bittburger 1 1.6 1.6 12.5
Blue Moon 7 10.9 10.9 23.4
Bud Light Lime 3 4.7 4.7 28.1
Budweiser 2 3.1 3.1 31.3
Coors 1 1.6 1.6 32.8
Coors Light 3 4.7 4.7 37.5
Corona 1 1.6 1.6 39.1
Czech Beer 1 1.6 1.6 40.6
Dogfish 4 6.3 6.3 46.9
Fosters 1 1.6 1.6 48.4
Guiness 1 1.6 1.6 50.0
Heineken 4 6.3 6.3 56.3
Lions Head 1 1.6 1.6 57.8
Magic Hat #9 2 3.1 3.1 60.9
Michelobultra 1 1.6 1.6 62.5
Miller 1 1.6 1.6 64.1
Monk Beer 1 1.6 1.6 65.6
Natural Light 1 1.6 1.6 67.2
Old English 1 1.6 1.6 68.8
Plahham 1 1.6 1.6 70.3
Rolling Rock 2 3.1 3.1 73.4
Rouge 1 1.6 1.6 75.0
Sam Adams 2 3.1 3.1 78.1
Sam Adams Winter Cherry 1 1.6 1.6 79.7
Shock Top 2 3.1 3.1 82.8
Sierra Nevada Torpedo 1 1.6 1.6 84.4
Stella 1 1.6 1.6 85.9
Victory 2 3.1 3.1 89.1
Yuengling 7 10.9 10.9 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
37 | P a g e

Top3
Valid
6 9.4 9.4 9.4
Amstel 1 1.6 1.6 10.9
Bass 1 1.6 1.6 12.5
Belgium Beer 1 1.6 1.6 14.1
Blue Moon 2 3.1 3.1 17.2
Brooklyn 1 1.6 1.6 18.8
Bud Light 3 4.7 4.7 23.4
Budweiser 1 1.6 1.6 25.0
Coors 3 4.7 4.7 29.7
Corona 4 6.3 6.3 35.9
DogFish 1 1.6 1.6 37.5
Golden Monkey 1 1.6 1.6 39.1
Hurricane 1 1.6 1.6 40.6
Leinenkugel Sunset Wheat 1 1.6 1.6 42.2
Lions Head 2 3.1 3.1 45.3
Long Trail 1 1.6 1.6 46.9
Magic Hat #9 1 1.6 1.6 48.4
Miller 3 4.7 4.7 53.1
Miller Light 2 3.1 3.1 56.3
Natural Light 2 3.1 3.1 59.4
Pong Beer 1 1.6 1.6 60.9
Sam Adams 2 3.1 3.1 64.1
Saronic 1 1.6 1.6 65.6
Shock Top 3 4.7 4.7 70.3
Stella 3 4.7 4.7 75.0
Stones 1 1.6 1.6 76.6
Troeggs 2 3.1 3.1 79.7
Victory 4 6.3 6.3 85.9
Yards 2 3.1 3.1 89.1
Yuengling 7 10.9 10.9 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
38 | P a g e

Age
Valid
19 2 3.1 3.1 3.1
20 7 10.9 10.9 14.1
21 26 40.6 40.6 54.7
22 17 26.6 26.6 81.3
23 5 7.8 7.8 89.1
24 4 6.3 6.3 95.3
26 3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
Gender
Valid
1 48 75.0 75.0 75.0
2 16 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 64 100.0 100.0
39 | P a g e

Appendix C
Crosstabs
Drinkweek * Taste Crosstabulation
Count
Taste Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 0 0 1 0 3 4
1 0 0 0 0 4 4
2 1 1 3 3 6 14
3 0 0 4 4 8 16
4 2 1 3 7 12 25
Total 3 2 11 14 33 63
Drinkweek * Price Crosstabulation
Count
Price Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 0 0 1 1 2 4
1 0 0 2 2 0 4
2 0 2 4 4 4 14
3 0 1 3 4 8 16
4 1 1 3 5 15 25
Total 1 4 13 16 29 63
Drinkweek * Alcoholcont Crosstabulation
Count
Alcoholcont Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 0 1 2 0 1 4
1 0 1 1 2 0 4
2 1 3 6 2 2 14
3 0 2 3 6 5 16
4 1 1 6 7 10 25
Total 2 8 18 17 18 63
40 | P a g e

Drinkweek * Quantity Crosstabulation
Count
Quantity Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 0 2 2 0 0 4
1 0 1 2 1 0 4
2 0 2 7 5 0 14
3 0 0 3 7 6 16
4 2 2 5 7 9 25
Total 2 7 19 20 15 63
Drinkweek * Quality Crosstabulation
Count
Quality Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 0 1 0 1 2 4
1 0 0 0 1 3 4
2 1 1 3 4 5 14
3 0 1 2 5 8 16
4 2 3 4 7 9 25
Total 3 6 9 18 27 63
Drinkweek * LightBeer Crosstabulation
Count
LightBeer Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 2 0 1 1 0 4
1 0 0 4 0 0 4
2 1 4 4 1 4 14
3 0 2 5 5 4 16
4 3 3 3 10 6 25
Total 6 9 17 17 14 63
41 | P a g e

Drinkweek * FullBeer Crosstabulation
Count
FullBeer Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 0 0 1 3 0 4
1 0 0 3 1 0 4
2 1 4 6 2 1 14
3 2 2 5 4 3 16
4 4 3 5 11 2 25
Total 7 9 20 21 6 63
Crosstabs
Spendweek * Taste Crosstabulation
Count
Taste Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 0 0 4 2 9 15
2 3 1 4 2 7 17
3 0 1 4 10 12 27
4 0 0 0 0 4 4
5 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 3 2 12 14 33 64
Spendweek * Price Crosstabulation
Count
Price Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 0 0 5 4 6 15
2 1 3 4 5 4 17
3 0 1 4 5 17 27
4 0 0 0 2 2 4
5 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 1 4 13 16 30 64
42 | P a g e

Spendweek * Alcoholcont Crosstabulation
Count
Alcoholcont Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 0 3 8 2 2 15
2 2 2 3 6 4 17
3 0 3 7 7 10 27
4 0 0 0 1 3 4
5 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 2 8 18 17 19 64
Spendweek * Quantity Crosstabulation
Count
Quantity Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 0 3 6 5 1 15
2 2 1 5 6 3 17
3 0 3 8 6 10 27
4 0 0 0 2 2 4
5 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 2 7 19 20 16 64
Spendweek * Quality Crosstabulation
Count
Quality Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 0 2 1 5 7 15
2 2 1 5 3 6 17
3 1 3 4 10 9 27
4 0 0 0 0 4 4
5 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 3 6 10 18 27 64
43 | P a g e

Spendweek * LightBeer Crosstabulation
Count
LightBeer Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 3 0 6 3 3 15
2 0 4 5 4 4 17
3 2 5 6 9 5 27
4 1 0 0 1 2 4
5 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 6 9 17 18 14 64
Spendweek * FullBeer Crosstabulation
Count
FullBeer Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 1 2 8 4 0 15
2 2 3 5 6 1 17
3 4 4 7 9 3 27
4 0 0 0 2 2 4
5 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 7 9 20 22 6 64
Crosstabs
Spendweek * NxtMonDom Crosstabulation
Count
NxtMonDom Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 2 3 5 1 4 15
2 3 1 2 2 9 17
3 2 0 1 6 18 27
4 0 1 1 0 2 4
5 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 7 5 9 9 34 64
44 | P a g e

Spendweek * NxtMonImp Crosstabulation
Count
NxtMonImp Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 2 2 3 4 4 15
2 0 2 4 5 6 17
3 3 4 8 6 6 27
4 0 0 2 1 1 4
5 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 5 8 17 16 18 64
Spendweek * NextMonCrft Crosstabulation
Count
NextMonCrft Total
1 2 3 4 5
Spendweek
1 5 4 2 2 2 15
2 2 0 8 2 5 17
3 3 2 6 7 9 27
4 1 0 0 1 2 4
5 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 11 6 17 12 18 64
Crosstabs
Drinkweek * NxtMonDom Crosstabulation
Count
NxtMonDom Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 2 1 1 0 0 4
1 0 0 2 1 1 4
2 3 2 2 2 5 14
3 1 1 1 0 13 16
4 1 1 3 6 14 25
Total 7 5 9 9 33 63
45 | P a g e

Drinkweek * NxtMonImp Crosstabulation
Count
NxtMonImp Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 1 1 1 1 0 4
1 0 1 1 0 2 4
2 1 2 5 3 3 14
3 1 1 4 4 6 16
4 2 3 5 8 7 25
Total 5 8 16 16 18 63
Drinkweek * NextMonCrft Crosstabulation
Count
NextMonCrft Total
1 2 3 4 5
Drinkweek
0 2 1 1 0 0 4
1 0 1 0 1 2 4
2 1 2 4 1 6 14
3 5 0 6 1 4 16
4 3 2 5 9 6 25
Total 11 6 16 12 18 63
Crosstabs
Price * Spendweek Crosstabulation
Count
Spendweek Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 0 1 0 0 0 1
2 0 3 1 0 0 4
3 5 4 4 0 0 13
4 4 5 5 2 0 16
5 6 4 17 2 1 30
Total 15 17 27 4 1 64
46 | P a g e

Price * Lastpurchase Crosstabulation
Count
Lastpurchase Total
1 2 3 4
Price
1 1 0 0 0 1
2 1 1 0 2 4
3 3 2 0 8 13
4 6 5 1 4 16
5 9 9 4 8 30
Total 20 17 5 22 64
Price * Drinkweek Crosstabulation
Count
Drinkweek Total
0 1 2 3 4
Price
1 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 0 0 2 1 1 4
3 1 2 4 3 3 13
4 1 2 4 4 5 16
5 2 0 4 8 15 29
Total 4 4 14 16 25 63
Price * NxtMonDom Crosstabulation
Count
NxtMonDom Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 0 1 1 2 0 4
3 3 2 3 1 4 13
4 2 2 3 4 5 16
5 2 0 2 2 24 30
Total 7 5 9 9 34 64
47 | P a g e

Price * NxtMonImp Crosstabulation
Count
NxtMonImp Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 0 1 0 3 0 4
3 2 1 3 0 7 13
4 1 2 4 6 3 16
5 2 4 10 7 7 30
Total 5 8 17 16 18 64
Price * NextMonCrft Crosstabulation
Count
NextMonCrft Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 1 0 0 0 0 1
2 0 0 1 2 1 4
3 3 3 4 1 2 13
4 1 1 2 3 9 16
5 6 2 10 6 6 30
Total 11 6 17 12 18 64
Price * Taste Crosstabulation
Count
Taste Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 0 1 0 1 2 4
3 2 0 4 1 6 13
4 0 0 0 6 10 16
5 1 1 8 6 14 30
Total 3 2 12 14 33 64
48 | P a g e

Price * Alcoholcont Crosstabulation
Count
Alcoholcont Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 0 1 2 0 1 4
3 1 1 5 4 2 13
4 0 5 2 6 3 16
5 1 1 9 7 12 30
Total 2 8 18 17 19 64
Price * Quantity Crosstabulation
Count
Quantity Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 1 0 0 0 0 1
2 0 1 3 0 0 4
3 1 2 5 3 2 13
4 0 1 5 10 0 16
5 0 3 6 7 14 30
Total 2 7 19 20 16 64
Price * Quality Crosstabulation
Count
Quality Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 0 1 0 1 2 4
3 2 0 1 4 6 13
4 0 0 0 7 9 16
5 1 5 9 6 9 30
Total 3 6 10 18 27 64
49 | P a g e

Price * LightBeer Crosstabulation
Count
LightBeer Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 0 2 1 1 0 4
3 3 1 6 2 1 13
4 2 3 6 3 2 16
5 1 3 4 12 10 30
Total 6 9 17 18 14 64
Price * FullBeer Crosstabulation
Count
FullBeer Total
1 2 3 4 5
Price
1 1 0 0 0 0 1
2 0 1 1 2 0 4
3 1 3 6 2 1 13
4 0 0 7 7 2 16
5 5 5 6 11 3 30
Total 7 9 20 22 6 64
50 | P a g e

Appendix D
Correlations
NxtMonImp NextMonCrft NxtMonDom Taste Price Alcoholcont Quality Quantity
NxtMonImp Pearson
Correlation
1 .182 .110 -.117 -.113 .194 .088 .157
Sig. (2-tailed) .150 .387 .359 .374 .125 .491 .216
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
NextMonCrft Pearson
Correlation
.182 1 .133 .254*
.044 .035 .229 .033
Sig. (2-tailed) .150 .294 .043 .727 .782 .069 .795
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
NxtMonDom Pearson
Correlation
.110 .133 1 -.013 .343**
.180 -.118 .281*
Sig. (2-tailed) .387 .294 .922 .006 .155 .353 .024
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Taste Pearson
Correlation
-.117 .254*
-.013 1 .017 .134 .715**
-.068
Sig. (2-tailed) .359 .043 .922 .893 .293 .000 .596
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Price Pearson
Correlation
-.113 .044 .343**
.017 1 .149 -.190 .473**
Sig. (2-tailed) .374 .727 .006 .893 .239 .132 .000
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Alcoholcont Pearson
Correlation
.194 .035 .180 .134 .149 1 .092 .491**
Sig. (2-tailed) .125 .782 .155 .293 .239 .471 .000
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Quality Pearson
Correlation
.088 .229 -.118 .715**
-.190 .092 1 .045
Sig. (2-tailed) .491 .069 .353 .000 .132 .471 .726
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Quantity Pearson
Correlation
.157 .033 .281*
-.068 .473**
.491**
.045 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .216 .795 .024 .596 .000 .000 .726
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
LightBeer Pearson
Correlation
.284*
-.124 .311*
-.093 .292*
.218 -.059 .285*
Sig. (2-tailed) .023 .329 .012 .466 .019 .084 .644 .022
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
FullBeer Pearson
Correlation
.103 .153 -.138 .133 .081 .268*
.293*
.273*
Sig. (2-tailed) .419 .228 .275 .296 .526 .032 .019 .029
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Yuengling Pearson
Correlation
-.004 .085 .091 .033 -.091 -.004 -.049 -.116
Sig. (2-tailed) .975 .505 .474 .796 .473 .974 .699 .361
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
BuffaloWings Pearson
Correlation
.104 .204 .128 .048 .350**
.267*
.043 .299*
Sig. (2-tailed) .413 .106 .312 .705 .005 .033 .737 .016
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Budweiser Pearson
Correlation
.149 -.034 .344**
.069 .358**
.243 -.143 .088
Sig. (2-tailed) .240 .789 .005 .587 .004 .053 .261 .491
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
51 | P a g e

MillerHighLife Pearson
Correlation
.278*
.004 .477**
-.043 .271*
.296*
-.066 .190
Sig. (2-tailed) .026 .973 .000 .735 .030 .018 .602 .134
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Age Pearson
Correlation
.150 .348**
.023 .084 -.042 .030 .181 -.147
Sig. (2-tailed) .238 .005 .855 .510 .739 .814 .151 .245
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
LightBeer FullBeer Yuengling BuffaloWings Budweiser MillerHighLife Age
NxtMonImp Pearson
Correlation
.284*
.103 -.004 .104 .149 .278*
.150
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.023 .419 .975 .413 .240 .026 .238
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
NextMonCrft Pearson
Correlation
-.124 .153 .085 .204 -.034 .004 .348**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.329 .228 .505 .106 .789 .973 .005
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
NxtMonDom Pearson
Correlation
.311*
-.138 .091 .128 .344**
.477**
.023
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.012 .275 .474 .312 .005 .000 .855
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Taste Pearson
Correlation
-.093 .133 .033 .048 .069 -.043 .084
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.466 .296 .796 .705 .587 .735 .510
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Price Pearson
Correlation
.292*
.081 -.091 .350**
.358**
.271*
-.042
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.019 .526 .473 .005 .004 .030 .739
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Alcoholcont Pearson
Correlation
.218 .268*
-.004 .267*
.243 .296*
.030
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.084 .032 .974 .033 .053 .018 .814
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Quality Pearson
Correlation
-.059 .293*
-.049 .043 -.143 -.066 .181
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.644 .019 .699 .737 .261 .602 .151
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Quantity Pearson
Correlation
.285*
.273*
-.116 .299*
.088 .190 -.147
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.022 .029 .361 .016 .491 .134 .245
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
LightBeer Pearson
Correlation
1 -.150 .023 .145 .405**
.397**
-.086
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.238 .856 .254 .001 .001 .500
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
FullBeer Pearson
Correlation
-.150 1 -.034 .222 -.022 .134 .044
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.238 .789 .078 .866 .290 .729
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Yuengling Pearson
Correlation
.023 -.034 1 .250*
.111 .089 .028
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.856 .789 .046 .382 .487 .826
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
52 | P a g e

BuffaloWings Pearson
Correlation
.145 .222 .250*
1 .351**
.387**
.176
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.254 .078 .046 .004 .002 .164
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Budweiser Pearson
Correlation
.405**
-.022 .111 .351**
1 .821**
.041
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.001 .866 .382 .004 .000 .747
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
MillerHighLife Pearson
Correlation
.397**
.134 .089 .387**
.821**
1 .204
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.001 .290 .487 .002 .000 .106
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Age Pearson
Correlation
-.086 .044 .028 .176 .041 .204 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.500 .729 .826 .164 .747 .106
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
53 | P a g e

Appendix E
Pie Chart
54 | P a g e

Mad greeks paper

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Mad greeks paper

Mad greeks paper