University of Santo Tomas College of Education

In partial fulfillment of the 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 markets shelves. Hence, the question of what to buy and where to buy continues to become a dilemma in the consumers 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 the public market and supermarket, which can give a practical Do the kinds of market and product brands have any effect on the prices of realization of the prices of the various goods? 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 of the products they buy in both public markets and supermarkets. 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 products 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

In o eBa k t c m r ce
P3 ,0 1 0 0 a da e n bov 64 %

B elowP1 ,00 0 0 4% P1 ,0 0 01 P2 0,00 0 8 % P20 0 -P3 ,00 ,0 1 0 0 2% 4

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

K do M r e in f a k t
0 % 0 % P b M rk t u lic a e 3% 6 S p rmrk t ue a e 6% 4

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

Ba d fC ic e r n o h kn
P re o s u fo d 1% 5 Oh rs te 0 %

Mgo a n lia 4% 7 O in ry rd a 3% 8

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

Mkn ee i 3 % C O ib o DBb 1% 9

B n o Ht o r d f od g a
Oh rs te 2 %

T n e Ju y e d r ic 7% 6

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%.

Oh rs te 1 % M gi ag 3 %

Ba d fN o l s r n o o de
Py s a le s 1% 4

L c yM uk e 8% 2

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

Oh rs te 7 %

Ba d fL u dyP w es r n o a n r o dr
M Ca r. le n 1% 0 S rf u 2% 1

T e id 6% 2

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

Coo hc Lv aa 0 %

B n o C ooae rn r d f h c l t Di k a
Oa in v lt e 1% 9

Oh r t es 4 %

M ilo 7% 7

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

Baa do Tohesse r n of o tOpse a Bd fT ohat rn ot p t t r h
1 s Oh r t% e 1 % Csu loe p 1% 9

C s u lo e p 1% 9

H pap e aHp e pe e 7 7 %%

C lgt o ae 7% 3 C lg t o ae 7% 3

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

Ba do S a p o r n f hmo
O thers 9% S unsilk 24% C r lea 32%

H d& S ea houlders 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

Ba do R e r n f ic
O ers th 4 % Ja m e s in 1% 9

S a d en in n om g 4% 4

D o d in ra o 3% 3

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

Ba do B d S a rn f oy op
Z t es 3% Others 8%

Pa oliv lm e 24% S feg rd a ua 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 Chicken 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 P6.75 P6.00 500g P51.00 P50.75 300g P62.00 P61.00 385mL P13.00 P12.00 100mL P48.00 P47.50 100mL P54.25 P52 10kg P360 P450 90g P21.75 P19.50 P22 P20 P22 P19.50 P320 P400 P350 P400 P54.50 P53.75 P54.75 P54.75 P53.50 P55.00 P53.00 P55.00 P13.50 P13.00 P13.50 P12.00 P63.50 P62.00 P62.50 P61.25 P51.50 P50.25 P51.50 P50.50 P6.75 P5.75 P6.50 P5.75 P165 P156 P157 P155 Net Weight Trabajo I kg P135 P135 P130 P130 P110 126 Public Markets Central Blumentritt

Table 2 Prices of Goods in Three Super Markets

Items Chicken 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

Net Weight 1kg

SM P122 P125

Super Market Puregold Ever Gotesco P128 P136.90 P176.60 P171 P6.50 P6.00 P51.35 P46.65 P62 P60 P13.20 P12.75 P50.90 P52.25 P55 P53.50 P370 P400 P21.30 P18.90 P126 P121 P182 P171 P6.50 P5.70 P51.85 P48 P62.50 P61 P13 P12.75 P50.50 P54 P54.75 P53 P410 P468.25 P21 P19.80

1kg P182 P171 55g P6.50 P5.70 500g P51 P47.10 300g P62.70 P64.50 385mL P13.25 P12.10 100mL P50.70 P53.10 100mL P54.70 P51.50 10kg P385 P465 90g P20.50 P19.70

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 (Ho) and alternative hypothesis (Ha) 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 Supermarket 125 136.9 121 122 128 126

Ordinary

ANOVA table for table 3 Source of Variation Sample (brand of chicken) Columns (kinds of market) Interaction Within

SS 43.7008 3 4.20083 3 6.90083 3 546.14 600.942 5

df 1 1 1 8

MS 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

Total

11

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 Types of Market Public Supermarket 161 182 165 176.6 157 182 155.5 171 156 171 155 171

CDO Bibbo

ANOVA Table for Table 4 Source of Variation Sample (brand of hotdog) Columns (kind of market) Interaction Within Total

SS 162.0675 903.0675 10.2675 51.94 1127.3425

df

MS 1 162.0675 1 903.0675 1 8 11 10.2675 6.4925

F 24.96226 139.094 1.58144

P-value 0.00105 8 2.45E06 0.24402

F crit 5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5

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 Types of Market Public Supermarket 6.75 6.5 6.75 6.5 6.5 6.5 6 5 5.75 6 5.75 5.7

Brand of Noodles Lucky Me

Payless

ANOVA Table for Table 5 Source of Variation Sample (brand of instant noodles) Columns (type of market) Interaction Within

SS 2.3408333 33 0.1408333 33 0.0075 0.61 3.0991666 67

df

MS 2.34083333 3 0.14083333 3 0.0075 0.07625

F 30.6994 5 1.84699 5 0.09836 1

P-value 0.00054 7 0.21120 5 0.76182 7

F crit 5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5

1 1 1 8

Total

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 Brand of Laundry Powder Tide 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

Surf

ANOVA Table for Table 6 Source of Variation Sample (brand of laundry powder) Columns (type of market) Interaction Within

SS 18.6252083 3 7.60020833 3 8.25020833 3 1.60166666 7 36.0772916 7

Df 1 1 1 8

MS 18.625208 33 7.6002083 33 8.2502083 33 0.2002083 33

F 93.0291 4 37.9615 41.2081 2

P-value 1.11E05 0.00027 1 0.00020 5

F crit 5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5

Total

11

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 Kinds of Market Supermarket 62.7 62 62.5 64.5 60 61

Ovaltine

ANOVA Table for Table 7 Source of Variation Sample Columns Interaction Within Total

SS 2.475208333 0.016875 0.350208333 13.135 15.97729167

Df 1 1 1 8 11

MS 2.4752083 33 0.016875 0.3502083 33 1.641875

F 1.50755 0.01027 8 0.21329 8

P-value 0.25441 1 0.92174 4 0.65649 4

F crit 5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5

Table 8 Prices of the Brands of Soy Sauce in Two Markets Kinds of Market Supermarket 12 13 12 12.1 12.75 12.75

Brand of Soy Sauce Silver Swan

Datu Puti

Public 13 13.5 13.5 13.25 13.2 13

ANOVA Table for Table 8 Source of Variation Sample Columns Interaction Within Total

SS 0.000208333 1.960208333 0.110208333 1.15 3.220625

Df 1 1 1 8 11

MS 0.0002083 33 1.9602083 33 0.1102083 33 0.14375

F 0.00144 9 13.6362 3 0.76666 7

P-value 0.97056 5 0.00610 6 0.40677 1

F crit 5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5

Decision: Accept Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho

Table 9 Prices of the Brands of Toothpastes in Two Markets Kinds of Market Supermarket 47.5 55 55 53.1 52.25 54

Brand of Toothpaste Colgate

Close-up

Public 48 53.5 53 50.7 50.9 50.5

ANOVA Table for Table 9 Source of Variation Sample Columns Interaction Within Total

SS 0.025208333 8.755208333 1.505208333 57.61166667 67.89729167

Df 1 1 1 8 11

MS 0.0252083 33 8.7552083 33 1.5052083 33 7.2014583 33

F 0.0035 1.21575 5 0.20901 4

P-value 0.95427 2 0.30225 7 0.6597

F crit 5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5

Decision: Accept Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho

Table 10 Prices of the Brands of Shampoos in Two Markets Kinds of Market Supermarket 52 53.75 54.75 51.5 53.5 53

Brand of Shampoo Clear

Head and Shoulder

Public 54.25 54.5 54.75 54.7 55 54.75

ANOVA Table for Table 10 Source of Variation Sample Columns Interaction Within Total SS 0.200208333 7.441875 0.991875 6.218333333 14.85229167 Df 1 1 1 8 11 MS 0.2002083 33 7.441875 0.991875 0.7772916 67 F 0.25757 2 9.57410 9 1.27606 5 P-value 0.62548 6 0.01479 5 0.29136 2 F crit 5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5

Decision: Accept Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho

Table 11 Prices of the Brands of Rice in Two Markets Kinds of Market Brand of Rice Sinandomeng Public 360 320 350 Dinorado 450 400 400 Supermarket 385 370 410 465 400 468.25

ANOVA Table for Table 11 Source of Variation Sample Columns Interactio n Within Total

SS 12561.5052 1 3969.42187 5 223.171875 6314.54166 7 23068.6406 3

Df 1 1 1 8 11

MS 12561.505 21 3969.4218 75 223.17187 5 789.31770 83

F 15.9143 8 5.02892 8 0.28274

P-value 0.00400 9 0.05520 7 0.60935 5

F crit 5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5

Decision: Reject ho Reject Ho Accept Ho

Table 12 Prices of the brands of Body Soap in Two Markets Kinds of Market Supermarket 20.5 21.3 21 19.7 18.9 19.8

Brand of Body Soap Safeguard

Palmolive

Public 21.75 22 22 19.5 20 19.5

ANOVA Table for Table 12 Source of Variation Sample Columns Interactio n Within Total

SS 10.36020833 1.050208333 0.460208333 1.021666667 12.89229167

df 1 1 1 8 11

MS 10.360208 33 1.0502083 33 0.4602083 33 0.1277083 33

F 81.1239 8 8.22349 1 3.60358 9

P-value 1.84E05 0.02090 4 0.09421 2

F crit 5.31765 5 5.31765 5 5.31765 5

Decision: Reject Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho