University of Santo Tomas College of Education
In partial fulfillment of the requirements requirements in Math Ed104
An Assessment on the Effect of Brand Name and the Types of Market to the Prices of Various Goods
Dairo, Roeder G. Magbitang, John Ildefonso V. Mendoza, Warren I. Sajise, Maria Antonette L. Tse, Zharina T.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Global crisis is a widely felt phenomenon that most Filipinos are experiencing today. The principle of practicality, wise spending and thriftiness is indeed in full effect. The wise use of resources serves as the primordial response of the Filipinos to this crisis. The fluctuating costs of commodities make it harder even to decide which ones to choose from the wide array on the market’s shelves. Hence, the question of what to buy and where to buy continues to become a dilemma in the consumer’s mind. In this study, the prices of various goods sold in both public market and wet market are being compared.
A. Statement of the Problem This study deals with the following questions: Is there a significant difference between the price of each of the goods sold
•
in public markets and the prices of the same products sold in supermarkets? •
Between Between the public public market and supermarket supermarket,, which which can give a practica practicall
realization of the prices of the various goods? •
Do the kinds of market and product brands have any effect on the prices of
the given goods in both types of markets?
B. Significance of the Study To address the financial crisis that rages around the globe, especially in the Philippines, this study aims to provide adequate information about the difference of the prices prices of the
products products they buy in both public markets markets and superma supermarkets rkets..
This study is targeted to help the Filipinos in choosing which market to go to and which product brands can give them the most realized and practical prices in line with the continuous increase of these goods.
C. Scope and Limitation This study includes the following:
1. 100 randomly selected students of the University of Santo Tomas 2. Three public markets namely Trabaho Public Market located in Sampaloc, Manila; Central Market located in Quiapo, Manila and Blumentrit Market located in Blumentrit, Manila. 3. Three supermarkets namely SM San Lazaro Supermarket , Puregold Supermarket in Pasig and Ever Gotesco supermarket in Sampaloc. 4. The products that both markets are selling 5. The prices of the two preferred brands of good of the respondents 6. Same net weight of the brands
The study will not include the following: 1. Other public markets and supermarkets in Manila other than stated above. 2. Products that are not present in both markets other than stated above.
D. Assumptions of the Study The researchers assume that: 1. There is no significant difference between the prices of goods sold in both public markets and supermarkets. 2. The brand name and the kind of market have an effect on the prices of various goods.
II.
A. Subjects
Method
This study focuses on the students from the University of Santo Tomas. A random sample of 100 people was chosen as the group gave out pieces of the survey around campus.
B. Instruments This study will be using a survey concerning some consumable or common products being used in a daily basis. These products have been chosen to make sure that in both types of market, they are being sold. Each good will have its top two mostly liked brands, which will then be chosen by the subjects.
C. Research design This study is composed of a set of randomized, single-blind controlled trials. This type of study was chosen because it would be best not to let the locus know about what was being studied. Otherwise, this might have an effect on the results of the surveys. It aims to show which types of market people prefer to go to and which brands of goods majority of the students of the University of Santo Tomas chooses.
D.
Data collection procedure This part of the paper will discuss about the processes the research went through, how it came about and other factors that affected the process itself. The steps will be called the phases. A short description of what transpired will be included.
•
Phase I
The researchers brainstormed on a certain topic that would be of great benefit to the public with regards to the continuous fluctuating prices of commodities thus, arriving at the topic to check whether the types of market affect the product’s prices. •
Phase II
A survey questionnaire was produced containing questions that will state the necessary goods to be observed. The questions were about certain goods which were used almost in the daily life. Food and toiletries were included. Each good was evaluated by the researchers by choosing for the mostly bought brand in
the market. Each good had two alternative brands for the correspondents to choose from. Otherwise, there was a blank provided for other brands preferred by each individual. Three public markets and supermarkets were chosen within the walls of Metro Manila.
•
Phase III
The said set of questionnaires was given out to the students of the University of Santo Tomas. The study was chosen to be random. Having different students from the different colleges of the university to answer was the researchers’ choice to see how various students will respond.
•
Phase IV
After giving out the questionnaires, the researchers went to the two types of markets, choosing three markets for each type. Prices were gathered in the markets and the weight or amount of each product was controlled to make sure a clear result is given out.
•
Phase V
After gathering all needed data, a two way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test was used to determine the relationship of the goods’ prices, place they are bought and if there is an effect on each other.
•
Phase VI
All gathered data was analyzed and placed in tables and graphs to make the presentation of data clearer.
III. Data Analysis A. Presentation of Data This section presents the data as collected from the survey questionnaires answered by 100 randomly selected students of the University of Santo Tomas. The succeeding presentations deal with the findings of the study.
Distribution of the Respondents according to the Monthly Income of the
IncomeBracket P30,001 andabove 64%
BelowP10,000 4% P10,001 P20,000 8% P20,001 -P30,000 24%
Family Chart 1 Chart 1 shows that majority of the respondents have family monthly income of P30, 001 and above or 64% of the total responses.
Distribution of the Respondents according to the kind of market where goods are being bought
KindofMarket 0%
0% PublicMarket 36% Supermarket 64%
Chart 2
Chart 2 shows that majority of the families of Thomasian students buy the follwing goods in super markets rather than pucligaining a percentage of 93%.
BRAND OF GOODS Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Chicken
BrandofChicken Others 0%
Purefoods 15%
Magnolia 47% Ordinary 38%
Chart 3.1 Chart 3.1 shows that Magnolia is the preferred brand of chicken of Thomasian students with 47% of the total responses and followed by ordinary chicken with 38%.
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of
Mekeni 3%
BrandofH otdog Others 2%
CDOBibbo 19%
TenderJuicy 76%
Hotdog Chart 3.2 Chart 3.2 shows that the two preferred hotdog brands of Thomasian students are Tender Juicy with percentage of 76% and CDO Bibbo with 19%.
Others 1%
BrandofNoodles Maggi 3%
Payless 14%
LuckyMe 82%
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Noodles Chart 3.3 Chart 3.3 shows that Lucky Me is the most popular choice among the brands of noodles gaining a percentage of 82% followed by Payless with 14%.
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Laundry Powders Others 7%
BrandofLaundryPowders Mr. Clean 10% Surf 21%
Tide 62%
Chart 3.4 Chart 3.4 shows that Tide with 66% and Surf with 22% of the total percentage are the two leading choices among the brands of laundry powders.
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of
Choco Lava 0%
Others 4%
BrandofChocolateD rink Ovaltine 19%
Milo 77%
Chocolate Drink Chart 3.5 Chart 3.5 shows that Milo and Ovaltine are the two preferred brands of chocolate drink with a percentage of 80% and 19% respectively.
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Soy Sauce
Chart 3.6 Chart 3.6 shows that Datu Puti gained the highest percentage of 49% followed by Silver Swan with 43%.
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Bra n d o ffT o o h p a s te B r a nd o T o ot th p a s te Others Closeup 19%
Hap pa e e H p pee 7%7%
% O t1 h ers 1% C loseup 19%
Co lga te 73%
Colgate 73%
Toothpaste Chart 3.7
Chart 3.7 shows that Colgate is the preferred brand of toothpaste among Thomasian students with 73% of the total responses and followed by Close up with 19%.
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of
Brandof Shampoo Others 9% Clear 32%
Sunsilk 24%
Head&Shoulders 35%
Shampoo Chart 3.8 Chart 3.8 shows that the two preferred brands of shampoo of Thomasian students are Head & Shoulders (35%) and Clear (32%).
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Rice
BrandofRice Others 4% Jasmine 19%
Sinandomeng 44%
Dinorado 33%
Chart 3.9
Chart 3.9 shows that Sinandomeng and Dinorado are the preferred brands of rice of Thomasian students with percentage of 45% and 34% respectively.
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Preferred Brand of Body
Brandof BodySoap Zest 3%
Others 8%
Palmolive 24% Safeguard 65%
Soa Chart 3.10 Chart 3.10 shows that Safeguard is the preferred brand of chicken of Thomasian students (69%) followed by Palmolive (26%).
From the result of the survey, the two brands of goods that gained the highest response from the respondents were used as the actual brands to be compared and tested. Three public markets in Manila namely Trabajo Market in Sampaloc, Central Market in Quiapo and Blumentritt Market and three supermarkets specifically SM San Lazaro Supermarket, Ever Gotesco Supermarket in Sampaloc and Puregold in Pasig were chosen. The prices of these two brands were taken from these two types of markets. The net weight of these brands of goods was controlled all throughout the testing. For public markets, the prices of goods taken in different stores were computed to yield the mean price. The tables below present the two brands of goods brands in two markets. Table 1 Prices of Goods in Three Public Markets Items
Net Weight
Chicken
Trabajo
Public Markets Central
Blumentritt
P135 P135
P130 P130
P110 126
P165 P156
P157 P155
P6.75 P6.00
P6.75 P5.75
P6.50 P5.75
P51.00 P50.75
P51.50 P50.25
P51.50 P50.50
P62.00 P61.00
P63.50 P62.00
P62.50 P61.25
P13.00 P12.00
P13.50 P13.00
P13.50 P12.00
P48.00 P47.50
P53.50 P55.00
P53.00 P55.00
P54.25 P52
P54.50 P53.75
P54.75 P54.75
P360 P450
P320 P400
P350 P400
P21.75 P19.50
P22 P20
P22 P19.50
I kg Ordinary Magnolia
Hotdogs Tender Juicy CDO Bibbo Instant Noodles Lucky Me Payless Laundry powders Tide Surf Chocolate drink Milo Ovaltine Soy sauce Silver Swan Datu Puti Toothpaste Colgate Close- Up Shampoo Clear Head and Shoulders Rice Sinandomeng Dinorado Body soap Safeguard Palmolive
Ikg P161 P155.50 55g
500g
300g
385mL
100mL
100mL
10kg
90g
Table 2 Prices of Goods in Three Super Markets
Super Market Items
SM
Puregold
Ever Gotesco
Ordinary
P122
P128
P126
Magnolia
P125
P136.90
P121
Chicken
Net Weight 1kg
Hotdogs
1kg
Tender Juicy
P182
CDO Bibbo
P176.60
P182
P171
P171
P171
Lucky Me
P6.50
P6.50
P6.50
Payless
P5.70
P6.00
P5.70
Tide
P51
P51.35
P51.85
Surf
P47.10
P46.65
P48
Milo
P62.70
P62
P62.50
Ovaltine
P64.50
P60
P61
Silver Swan
P13.25
P13.20
P13
Datu Puti
P12.10
P12.75
P12.75
Colgate
P50.70
P50.90
P50.50
Close- Up
P53.10
P52.25
P54
Clear
P54.70
P55
P54.75
Head and Shoulders
P51.50
P53.50
P53
Sinandomeng
P385
P370
P410
Dinorado
P465
P400
P468.25
Safeguard
P20.50
P21.30
P21
Palmolive
P19.70
P18.90
P19.80
Instant Noodles
Laundry powders
Chocolate drink
Soy sauce
55g
500g
300g
385mL
Toothpaste
Shampoo
100mL
100mL
Rice
10kg
Body soap
90g
B. Discussion Two-way analysis of variance was used to test whether the brand name or the type of market or the interaction of both have an effect on the prices of the various goods. The rejection of the null hypothesis depends on the comparison between the p-value and the level of significance or between the critical value and the test statistic (F). If the p-value corresponding to the test statistic is small (such as less than or equal to alpha), we reject the null hypothesis of no effect from the row, column and interaction factor. If the p-value is large (such as greater than or equal to alpha), we fail to reject the null hypothesis of no effect from the row, column and interaction factor (Triola, 2010). In our testing the level of significance used was 95% or 0.05.
The general null hypothesis (H o) and alternative hypothesis (H a) for all the 10 items are as follows:
Ho: There is no significant effect on the prices of goods due to the kind of its brand. Ha: There is a significant effect on the prices of goods due to the kind of its brand. Ho: There is no significant effect on the prices of goods due to the type of market where these goods are being bought.
Ha: There is a significant effect on the prices of goods due to the type of market where these goods are being bought.
Ho: There is no significant effect on the prices of goods due to the type of market and the kind of brand.
Ha: There is a significant effect on the prices of goods due to the type of market and the kind of brand.
Testing of Hypothesis for each item The following tables show the prices of goods in the two types of markets. The rows signify the brands of the goods while the columns display the kinds of market. Each entry in the cell was the actual prices of these brands taken in three public markets and supermarkets. The testing of the data gathered was to be done per goods in order to identify the effect of the brands and the kind of market to the prices of
these specific items through the use of two-way ANOVA. Their corresponding ANOVA table as shown below matched each of the table.
Table 3 Prices of the Brands of Chicken in Two Markets Type of Market Brand of Chicken Magnolia
Public 135 130 126 135 130 110
Ordinary
Supermarket 125 136.9 121 122 128 126
ANOVA table for table 3 Source of Variation
Sample (brand of chicken) Columns (kinds of market) Interaction Within
Total
SS
df
MS
43.7008 3 4.20083 3 6.90083 3 546.14
1 8
600.942 5
11
1 1
43.7008 3 4.20083 3 6.90083 3 68.2675
F
0.64014 1 0.06153 5 0.10108 5
P-value
0.44676 5 0.81033 5 0.75867 2
F crit
5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5
To test the effect of the brand of chicken to its market price, p-value and the level of significance are needed to be compared. The p-value is 0.446765, which is greater than the alpha (0.05) used. In this case, the null hypothesis, that there is no significant effect on the price of goods due to the brand of chicken needs to be accepted. Thus, the brand of chicken has no effect on its price. The p-value of the type of market where the chicken is being bought is 0.810335 which is greater than 0.05. The decision to be made is to accept the null hypothesis that the type of market has no effect on the price of chicken.
The interaction between the brand of chicken and the market where it is being purchased has no effect on the relative price of the chicken because the p-value obtained, 0.810335, is less than 0.05.
Table 4 Prices of the Brands of Hotdogs in Two Markets
Brand of hotdog Tender Juicy
Public 161 165 157 155.5 156 155
CDO Bibbo
Types of Market Supermarket 182 176.6 182 171 171 171
ANOVA Table for Table 4 Source of Variation
Sample (brand of hotdog) Columns (kind of market) Interaction Within Total
SS
162.0675
df
MS
1
162.0675
F
P-value
F crit
24.96226
0.00105 8
5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5
903.0675
1
903.0675
139.094
2.45E06
10.2675 51.94
1 8
10.2675 6.4925
1.58144
0.24402
1127.3425
11
The p-value of the sample, the brand of chicken, is 0.001058 which is less than the level of significance. The null hypothesis of having an effect on the price of hotdogs due to its brand has to be rejected. Thus, the brand of hotdog has effect on its market price.
Comparing to the alpha, the p-value of the column, the type of market, has less value (2.45E-06 > 0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis needs to be rejected. The type of market where hotdogs are bought has an effect on its price.
The p-value of the interaction of the brand of chicken and the type of market is 0.24402, which is greater than the alpha of 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis needs to be accepted. The brand of chicken and the type of market where it is being bought has no outcome of its market price.
Table 5 Prices of the Brands of Instant Noodles in Two Markets
Brand of Noodles Lucky Me
Public 6.75 6.75 6.5 6 5.75 5.75
Payless
Types of Market Supermarket 6.5 6.5 6.5 5 6 5.7
ANOVA Table for Table 5 Source of Variation
Sample (brand of instant noodles) Columns (type of market) Interaction Within
Total
SS
2.3408333 33
df
MS
F
P-value
F crit
1
2.34083333 3
30.6994 0.00054 5 7
5.31765 5
0.1408333 33
1
0.14083333 3
0.0075 0.61
1 8
0.0075 0.07625
1.84699 0.21120 5 5 0.09836 0.76182 1 7
5.31765 5 5.31765 5
3.0991666 67
11
Since the p-value of the sample is 0.000547, which is less than the alpha, the null hypothesis has to be rejected. Thus, the brand of instant noodles has effect on its market price.
The p-value of the column yields a value of 0.211205, which is greater than the alpha of 0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis of having an effect on the price of instant noodles due to the type of market must be accepted. The type of market where the noodles are purchased has no bearing on its price.
The interaction of type of market and the brand of the noodles has a p-value of 0.761827. The p-value is greater than the level of significance used. Thus, the type of market and the brand of instant noodles have no effect on its price.
Table 6 Prices of the Brands of Laundry Powders in Two Markets Types of Market Public Supermarket 51 51 51.5 51.35 51.5 51.85 50.75 47.1 50.25 46.65 50.5 48
Brand of Laundry Powder Tide
Surf
ANOVA Table for Table 6 Source of Variation
Sample (brand of laundry powder) Columns (type of market) Interaction Within
Total
SS
18.6252083 3 7.60020833 3 8.25020833 3 1.60166666 7 36.0772916 7
Df
MS
1 1 1 8
11
F
P-value
18.625208 93.0291 1.11E33 4 05 7.6002083 0.00027 33 37.9615 1 8.2502083 41.2081 0.00020 33 2 5 0.2002083 33
F crit
5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5
The brand of the laundry powder yielded a p-value of 1.11E-05, which is greater than the alpha of 0.05. The null hypothesis needs to be accepted. Thus, the brand of laundry powder has no effect on its price.
The type of market acquired a p-value of 0.000271. When compared to the alpha used, it would fall under the region of acceptance. Hence, the null hypothesis must be accepted. The type of market has no effect on the price of laundry powders.
Table 7 Prices of the Brands of Chocolate Drink in Two Markets
Brand of Chocolate Drink Milo
Public 62 63.5 62.5 61 62 61.25
Ovaltine
Kinds of Market Supermarket 62.7 62 62.5 64.5 60 61
ANOVA Table for Table 7 Source of Variation
Sample
SS
Df
MS
2.475208333
1
0.016875
1
Interaction Within
0.350208333 13.135
1 8
Total
15.97729167
11
Columns
F
2.4752083 33 1.50755 0.01027 0.016875 8 0.3502083 0.21329 33 8 1.641875
P-value
F crit
0.25441 1 0.92174 4 0.65649 4
5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5
Table 8 Prices of the Brands of Soy Sauce in Two Markets
Brand of Soy Sauce Silver Swan
Public 13 13.5 13.5 13.25 13.2 13
Datu Puti
Kinds of Market Supermarket 12 13 12 12.1 12.75 12.75
ANOVA Table for Table 8 Source of Variation
SS
Df
MS
Sample
0.000208333
1
Columns
1.960208333
1
Interaction Within
0.110208333 1.15
1 8
3.220625
11
Total
Decision: Accept Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho
0.0002083 33 1.9602083 33 0.1102083 33 0.14375
F
0.00144 9 13.6362 3 0.76666 7
P-value
F crit
0.97056 5.31765 5 5 0.00610 5.31765 6 5 0.40677 5.31765 1 5
Table 9 Prices of the Brands of Toothpastes in Two Markets
Brand of Toothpaste Colgate
Public 48 53.5 53 50.7 50.9 50.5
Close-up
Kinds of Market Supermarket 47.5 55 55 53.1 52.25 54
ANOVA Table for Table 9 Source of Variation
SS
Df
MS
Sample
0.025208333
1
Columns
8.755208333
1
Interaction
1.505208333
1
Within
57.61166667
8
Total
67.89729167
11
Decision: Accept Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho
F
0.0252083 33 0.0035 8.7552083 1.21575 33 5 1.5052083 0.20901 33 4 7.2014583 33
P-value
F crit
0.95427 5.31765 2 5 0.30225 5.31765 7 5 5.31765 0.6597 5
Table 10 Prices of the Brands of Shampoos in Two Markets
Brand of Shampoo Clear
Public 54.25 54.5 54.75 54.7 55 54.75
Head and Shoulder
Kinds of Market Supermarket 52 53.75 54.75 51.5 53.5 53
ANOVA Table for Table 10 Source of Variation
SS
Df
MS
0.200208333
1
0.2002083 33
Columns
7.441875
1
7.441875
Interaction
0.991875
1
Within
6.218333333
8
0.991875 0.7772916 67
Total
14.85229167
11
Sample
Decision: Accept Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho
F
P-value
0.25757 0.62548 2 6 9.57410 0.01479 9 5 1.27606 0.29136 5 2
F crit
5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5
Table 11 Prices of the Brands of Rice in Two Markets Kinds of Market Brand of Rice
Public
Supermarket
Sinandomeng
360
385
320
370
350
410
450
465
400
400
400
468.25
Dinorado
ANOVA Table for Table 11 Source of Variation
Sample Columns Interactio n Within
SS
12561.5052 1 3969.42187 5 223.171875 6314.54166 7 23068.6406 3
Total
Df
MS
1 1 1 8
F
12561.505 15.9143 21 8 3969.4218 5.02892 75 8 223.17187 5 0.28274 789.31770 83
11
Decision: Reject ho Reject Ho Accept Ho
P-value
F crit
0.00400 5.31765 9 5 0.05520 5.31765 7 5 0.60935 5.31765 5 5
Table 12 Prices of the brands of Body Soap in Two Markets
Brand of Body Soap Safeguard
Public 21.75 22 22 19.5 20 19.5
Palmolive
Kinds of Market Supermarket 20.5 21.3 21 19.7 18.9 19.8
ANOVA Table for Table 12 Source of Variation
SS
df
MS
Sample
10.36020833
1
Columns Interactio n
1.050208333
1
0.460208333
1
Within
1.021666667
8
Total
12.89229167
11
Decision: Reject Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho
10.360208 33 1.0502083 33 0.4602083 33 0.1277083 33
F
P-value
F crit
81.1239 8 8.22349 1 3.60358 9
1.84E05 0.02090 4 0.09421 2
5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5
