# Salty Snacks

Posted: September 10th, 2013

Name:

Course:

Instructor:

Date:

Salty Snacks

Question 1:

The average levels of duplication as provided in the excel sheet are increasing from left to right of the columns provided in the sheet. The numbers in terms of the purchases made by the consumers increase mainly due to higher preferences for some of products from left to right of the columns.

Question 2:

The scatter plot indicates that the there is a relatively high number of brands which share a specific market share with other entities. This is an express indication that consumers in this market have a similar reception towards the majority of the brands in the market. However, a specific brand is isolated from the rest in that; its products have a higher level of penetration as well as duplication by the consumers. As provided in the excel sheet, “Duplication=2 *Penetration” indicates that the level of duplication could be interpreted as two times that of penetration in the market.

Question 4:

Average rate of duplication for all brands in the table is derived as 399/12= 33.25

The average rate of penetration is derived as 172/12 = 14.33

Question 4:

Purchase duplication coefficient is derived as = average duplication rate/average rate of penetration.

Average duplication rate= 33.25

Average rate of penetration= 14.33

Purchase duplication coefficient = 33.25/14.33= 2.32

Purchase duplication coefficient = 2.32

Question 5:

A duplication of 2.3 is similar to what was earlier provided as duplication = 2*penetration. A level of duplication as implied by the term is an indicator of the similarities existent between the various products. Hence, due to such similarities consumers find minimal change in terms of use of one product or the other, as they are equally sufficient in the satisfaction of the wants and needs of the consumers (Colombo, Ehrenberg & Sabavala, 31).

 Brand Name Penetration *( Coefficient value= 2.3)= Expected duplications Difference between actual and expected duplication values BB Standard 48*2.3= 110.4 78-110.4= -32.4 BB Murphys 20*2.3=46 43-46= -3 Eta O’Ryans 19*2.3=43.7 43-43.7= – 0.7 Kettle Fries 16*2.3=36.8 37-36.8= 0.2 BB Corn Chips 14*2.3=32.3 33-32.3=  0.7 BB Twisties 12*2.3=27.6 30-27.6= 2.4 Eta Munchos 11*2.3=25.3 28-25.3= 2.7 BB Biguns 9*2.3=20.7 29-20.7= 8.3 Burger Rings 9*2.3=20.7 27-20.7= 6.3 CC’s 8*2.3=18.4 27-18.4= 8.6 Sanchos 4*2.3=9.2 18-9.2= 8.8 Aztec 2*2.3=4.6 6-4.6= 1.4

Question 6:

Similarities in the levels of duplications are an express indication of the presence of profound similarities between products despite their various differentiations (Ratneshwar & Shocker, pp. 41).

Question 7:

The significance of the higher duplication proportions in the extruded among the various brands is an indication of the presence of relatively higher similarities between the groups of products resulting in the constant change by consumers in making the purchases. Additionally, the potato brands seem to have a higher rate of consumption and thus a higher rate of duplication amongst the consumers (Ehrenberg, pp. 26).

Question 8:

The figure 3.7 provided is a division of the rate of penetration and the rate of duplication. It indicates that the consumers of extruded snacks are 3.7 times more likely to make purchases of extruded snacks than purchase of the corn products. This figure is used to derive the rate at which the products are duplicated given their current levels of penetration in a given market. A figure of 3.7 is relatively high in that it indicates the probability of purchase of other products over others (Lattin & McAlister, pp 23).

Question 9:

Extruded varieties of snacks have higher preference from the consumers and are likely to be picked by the consumers instead of other products. Additionally, the potato snacks have a higher penetration because of their large market share; hence, they would provide larger revenue streams for the organization.

Work Cited

Colombo, Ehrenberg & Sabavala, “Diversity in analyzing brand-switching tables: The car challenge” Canadian Journal of Marketing Research Vol. 19, (2000).Print.

Ehrenberg, Uncles & Goodhardt, “Understanding Brand Performance Measures” Journal of Business Research Vol.57, (2004). Print.

Ehrenberg, Andrew “Repeat Buying – Facts Theory and Applications”, Journal of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing Science Vol. 5, (2000). Print.

Lattin & McAlister, L. “Using a variety-seeking model to identify substitute and complementary relationships among competing products”, Journal of Marketing Research Vol. 27, August (1985). Print.

Ratneshwar, S. & Shocker, A.D. “Substitution in Use and the Role of Usage Context in Product Category Structures”, Journal of Marketing Research Vol. 28, (August 2001). Print.

### Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

## Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
\$0.00