Marketing Research †Final Exam Review Essay

Units 1-2One question will be drawn from the following. This is the hardly existent you need to know from the first two units except for material that has carried over into Unit 3. For instance, things like response types, population, sample, sampling distribution, etc. were cover in Unit 2. These concepts ar important to understanding the Unit 3 material, so you need to know them.Studying real organizations is sometimes the to the highest degree effective way to understand some marketing research concepts. In this course, class material has been illustrated through over fifty examples of real organizations. about of the examples and cases have been covered in the first two exams. These possible farsighted answer questions address examples and cases that have not been coveredt present arent that many of that havent been covered1. In the Diageo Captain Morgan notes case, what did focus choose to do and why? (4 pts) What was the outcome, and why did it happen? (4 pts) What is th e main(prenominal) lesson to take away from the case? (2 pts)2. In the cloth vs. disposable diapers case, attract the background and results of the two studies. (8 pts) What lesson does this illustrate about using secondary entropy for marketing research? (2 pts)3. In the Whirlpool case, what did marketing research studies show, and what did management decide to do? (6 pts) While management made a err angiotensin converting enzymeousness in hindsight, their reasoning made sense from the production sidewhy? (2 pts) There are several takeaway lessons from this case. Name one. (2 pts)Unit 3 There is only one possible long answer question, and here it isPart 1Do people in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Houston shed the same average amount on furniture each year, or are there differences between the cities? To answer this, a furniture beau monde gathered data from people in the four cities. The supervisor proposes that they contrast each pair of cities. So they would compare NYC vs. Chicago, NYC vs. LA, NYC vs. Houston, Chicago vs. LA, Chicago vs. Houston, and LA vs. Houston. If any of those pairs reveals a signifi understructuret difference with 95% confidence (i.e., you back end be 95% confident that the two groups are different), then they can conclude that the cities are not all the same.a. Briefly, why isnt this a good way to analyze the data? (5 pts) The problem with running 6 pair tests is that there is still a 5% chance that the z- repute we calculate will be a fluke that leads to a falsely conclusion. For each calculation done, there is an increased chance of error, thus we are six times more likely to get the wrong conclusion. This excretes you a descend of 1-(95/100) 6 = 0.265 = 26.5% chance of improperly rejecting at least one of your six calculations.b. What is a better method? You only need to give the name of the method. (2 pts)The better method to use is called analysis of variance aka analysis of variancePart 2When conducting a chi -square test, the expected frequencies are equal to(Row total x Column total) Grand totalHow is this formula derived from mathematical and probability rules? Be detailed. If it helps to explain it by referring to an actual remand, you can use the table below. (10 pts) This formula is derived by each individual amount being charge to each other individual amount. The probability of being in path A is A/E = one hundred fifty/253 = .5929 = 59.29% The probability of being in tugboat C is C/E = 135/253 = .5336 = 53.36% Thus when mathematically combining the probability of being in row A and column C is A/E x C/E = 150/253 x 135/253 = (150135)/253 = 80.04 which is the same asBDCAE.5929 x .5336 = .3164 x 253 = 80.04