Analyze a research design and recommend an alternative design.
ccbtta
case_12-4.pdf
7/30/2016 Marketing Research, 11th Edition
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118632796/cfi/6/6/10!/4/2/50/14/6/2@0:62.7 1/9
Assignment
Develop a research design including:
1. The type of survey to be employed 2. A questionnaire
CASE 123: Compact Lemon
Ben Johnson, a marketing research staff member, has been asked to provide a quantitative estimate of the demand for a new product concept, tentatively called Compact Lemon. The concept involves a powerful spray cleaner with a lemon scent to be used to clean trash compactors. The product will involve a heavyduty cleaner that will clean more easily than current competitors, which are not in a spray form, and that will provide the added benefit of a deodorizer.
Johnson has a research proposal for a telephone survey—a national random sample of 600 homeowners screened to be owners of compactors would be phoned via a WATS line. Johnson wonders (1) whether the proposed questionnaire will deliver the necessary information and (2) what improvements could be made.
Proposed Questionnaire for Telephone Survey
1. Do you own a compactor? 2. How often do you use your compactor? 3. Is it satisfactory? 4. Any problems? 5. Have you noticed any odor problems? (Skip if covered in question 4.)
Our client is considering a new product. The concept involves a powerful lemonscented cleaner in a convenient spray container to be used to clean trash compactors. This heavyduty cleaner will clean more easily because it is in spray form, and it will provide the added benefit of a deodorizer.
6. Which of the following would describe your likelihood to buy the product? Would buy it Would very likely buy it Would not very likely buy it Would not buy it 7. What is your reaction to this idea? (Probe—any other reactions?) 8. How often do you use deodorizers in the home? 9. How many people are living in your home? 10. What is your age? 11. Do you have children under eight years old? 12. Which are you?
a. Home owner? b. Home renter? c. Apartment renter?
CASE 124: Project DATA: An Urban Transportation Study
The Downtown Agency for Transportation Action project (Project DATA) was a collaborative approach to the problem of improving the highdensity movement of people and goods within downtown Cleveland.1 In August 1996, the survey researcher employed by Project DATA was wondering how to collect downtown origin and
7/30/2016 Marketing Research, 11th Edition
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118632796/cfi/6/6/10!/4/2/50/14/6/2@0:62.7 2/9
1996, the survey researcher employed by Project DATA was wondering how to collect downtown origin and destination (DOD) data for input to a comprehensive model of traveler behavior in downtown Cleveland. Problems had been compounded by a poor response rate to a recent test of the preferred method of data collection, a mailback questionnaire distributed to rapidtransit users, bus patrons, and automobile travelers. Consequently, the researcher had to decide in a short time whether to stay with the mailback questionnaire method or try some other, more costly, procedure. Not to change would involve persuading the other members of the research team that the problems encountered in the pretest could be overcome and that the mailback method would yield sufficiently accurate results.
Background
Downtown Cleveland represented one of the most important concentrations of people in the Midwest. It generally was defined as an area encircled by the Cuyahoga River Valley, the Innerbelt Freeway, and Lake Erie. For the purposes of Project DATA, this definition was modified slightly to include the downtownoriented activity centers adjacent to the southeast corner of the area outside the Innerbelt Freeway. These centers include the future location of Cuyahoga Community College and the St. Vincent Hospital and its parking area.
There had been considerable progress in making downtown Cleveland more accessible through rail rapid transit and freeways; however, facilities to expedite the movement of people and goods within the downtown area were being installed at a much slower rate. Transportation planners had tended to treat downtown Cleveland as a terminus point for regional linehaul transportation, yet the downtown covered a broad land area with several separate activity centers and a solid network of business, commercial, and entertainment facilities. Except for a downtown loop bus system, there was little transportation among these centers.
The lack of transportation was regarded as a contributing factor in the deterioration of downtown Cleveland and many other urban areas. After the Hough riots, Cleveland was chosen by the U.S. Department of Transportation as the site of the first largescale effort to design a comprehensive central urban transportation network. A number of systems were under consideration, including: (1) traintype systems, (2) small automatic taxis, and (3) continuous systems. Each was to be evaluated by a model that would simulate the decision processes of different user segments. The model would consider where and how users move from one place to another for various trip purposes within the downtown area. The DOD data being collected by Project DATA were to be the base for the calibration of the simulation model. In addition, the data would be used in the development of interim projects to improve the existing downtown transportation system. Thus, there was considerable urgency behind the request for the data.
Designing the DOD Study
The first step was to establish the purpose of the study. After extensive discussions, it was agreed that the following types of information were needed:
1. The numbers and socioeconomic characteristics of people who move to, from, and within downtown Cleveland 2. The locations of the activity centers within downtown Cleveland to which these people are moving 3. The methods of travel used to move these people to, from, and within downtown 4. The trip purposes of the people movements 5. The time distribution of the peoplemovement patterns throughout a 24hour period
A number of alternative methods for collecting the DOD information were considered. These included mailback questionnaires distributed to people at key locations within the downtown area, personal interviews conducted at these same key locations, telephone surveys, trip diaries distributed to people to complete over extended periods of time, mailback questionnaires sent to houses, personal home interviews, newspaper coupons to be completed and returned by mail, and a system of distributing and collecting precoded computer cards to reflect origins and destinations of trips within the downtown area.
An evaluation of the various survey designs was made by the Project DATA staff. It decided that a mailback
7/30/2016 Marketing Research, 11th Edition
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118632796/cfi/6/6/10!/4/2/50/14/6/2@0:62.7 3/9
An evaluation of the various survey designs was made by the Project DATA staff. It decided that a mailback questionnaire distributed at key locations within the downtown area was the most realistic approach to collecting the needed information, taking into account the time and financial constraints of the project. To test this decision, a pilot survey was conducted. The objectives were:
1. To evaluate the ability of the survey forms and questions to obtain the required data 2. To determine the approximate survey response rates that could be expected from the various categories of people so that a proper data sampling frame could be formulated 3. To ascertain where in the downtown area the survey questionnaires should be distributed 4. To determine the best procedures for distributing the questionnaires to the users of various modes of transportation
The pilot survey utilized the questionnaire shown in Figure 123. Four hundred were distributed to rapidtransit users as they went through the turnstiles in Terminal Tower. Another 600 were given to bus riders as they passed an imaginary downtown cordon line. Those questionnaires were distributed only during the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic periods. A final 400 questionnaires were distributed within two major parking lots by placing them under windshield wipers after the automobiles had been parked. The results of the pilot survey are summarized in Figures 124, 125, and 126.
Questions for Discussion
1.
Critique the questionnaire. Does it provide the required data?
2.
Evaluate the overall research design with respect to possible sources of bias in the results and the reasons for the poor response rate.
3.
Specify how you would improve this mailback survey.
4.
Suggest an alternative design and cite its advantages and shortcomings.
FIGURE 123: Project DATA transportation questionnaire.
7/30/2016 Marketing Research, 11th Edition
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118632796/cfi/6/6/10!/4/2/50/14/6/2@0:62.7 4/9
7/30/2016 Marketing Research, 11th Edition
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118632796/cfi/6/6/10!/4/2/50/14/6/2@0:62.7 5/9
FIGURE 124: Distribution and response of pilot survey.
Mode Number of
Questionnaires Returned
Number of Questionnaires Handed
Out
Percentage Return
CTS Rapid Transit 20 (a.m.) 100 20
7/30/2016 Marketing Research, 11th Edition
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118632796/cfi/6/6/10!/4/2/50/14/6/2@0:62.7 6/9
19 (p.m.) 100 19
Shaker Rapid Transit 23 (a.m.) 100 23
16 (p.m.) 100 16
CTS Bus Route 32 23 (a.m.) 100 23
(suburban express) 15 (p.m.) 100 15
CTS Bus Route 9 22 (a.m.) 100 22
(suburban local) 16 (p.m.) 100 16
CTS Bus Route 14 5 (a.m.) 100 5
(lowincome innercity area local) 1 (p.m.) 100 1
Department Store Parking Lot (relatively high parking turnover rate) 10 200 5
Muny Parking Lot (caters primarily to all day parkers) 16 200 8
Totals 186 1,400
FIGURE 125: Analysis of problems by Project DATA staff.
1. A common error for rapid transit respondents was that they failed to record Terminal Tower as their first destination in the central business district (CBD). 2. A common error for all respondents was that they often failed to record return trips, especially the return lunch trip. 3. It appears that a relatively large number of people (especially bus riders) do not leave the building they work in during the day. Or, these people did not understand how to fill out the form. 4. The people that returned the questionnaire can be generally categorized into two major groups: (a) those that completely understood how to fill out question 1, and (b) those that completely misunderstood how to fill out question 1. 5. A few people recorded “work,” “restaurant,” and so on as their origin and destination points, rather than an address or the specific name or the place or location. 6. Several people did not record the number of the home address; only street, city, and Zip Code. 7. A relatively large number of respondents failed to answer question 2.
