RELATIONSHIPS OP MERCHANDISING PRACTICES AMD OTHER FACTORS TO
THE SALES OF GREENHOUSE TOMATOES IN RETAIL FOOD STORES
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
THEODORE WILLIAM LEBD, B. S., M. S.
******
The Ohio State University 1956
Approved by:
Advis er Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S
The author wishes to acknowledge and express his appreciation to those whose cooperation and assistance made this manuscript possible.
To Dr. Ralph W. Sherman and Dr. Mervin G. Smith who contributed helpful criticism and suggestions.
Especially to Dr. M. E. Cravens, who gave generously of his time and who provided encouragement and valuable counsel and guidance throughout the study and preparation of the manuscript.
To the Kroger Company, Columbus Branch, and Big Bear Stores
Incorporated, Columbus, Ohio, whose cooperation made the study possible.
To the Dobeckmun Company, Cleveland, Ohio, who generously furnished the bags used in the study.
To my wife, Doris, whose patience, understanding and encourage ment contributed immeasurably to the completion of this manuscript.
ii TABLE OP CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......
Importance of Greenhouse Tomato Production in Ohio
Marketing Greenhouse Tomatoes in Ohio ......
PURPOSE OP THE STUDY ......
Retail Merchandising ......
Method of display ......
Promotion ......
Spoilage loss ......
Supply-Price Relationships ......
SECTION I ......
RETAIL MERCHANDISING ......
Pall Crop Study - 1953 ......
Methodology...... '......
1. Selection of stores and time period ......
2. Selection of treatments ......
3. Experimental design ......
4. Procedure ......
a. Non-test variables ......
b. Record taking ......
Analysis and Results ......
1. Method of display ......
a. Non-test variables ......
b. Analysis of variance ...... TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
(1) Size of display ...... 27
(2) Price ...... 23
(3) Carryover ...... 29
2. Spoilage loss ...... 30
Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 34
Spring Crop Study - 1954 ...... 36
Methodology...... 36
1. Experimental design ...... 36
2. Selection of stores ...... 37
3. Selection of treatments (methods of display) ...... 38
4. Methods of promotion ...... 40
5. Non-test variables ...... 42
6 . Control period ...... 42
(a) Procedure ...... 43
Analysis and Results ...... 49
1. Methods of display ...... 49
a. Non-test variables ...... 53
(1) Price ...... 54
(2) Quality...... 56
(5) Size of displa~y...... 57
2. Promotion ...... 58
a. Size of display ...... 67
b. Cost of "salad bowl" promotion..... 71
iv TABLE OF CONTESTS (Continued)
Pege
c. Conclusions ...... 72
3. Spoilage loss ...... 75
Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 80
1. Method of display ...... 80
2. Promotion ...... 83
3. Spoilage loss ...... 85
4. Other recommendations ...... 85
SECTION II ...... 87
WHOLESALE PRICE ANALYSIS ...... 87
Purpose ...... 87
Source and Nature of the Data ...... 87
Analysis and Results ...... 88
1. Greenhouse tomato supply and price ...... 90
(a) Spring crop ...... 90
(h) Fall crop ...... 92
2. Tubed tomato supply and price ...... 94
3. Tubed and greenhouse tomato price
(a) Spring crop ...... 95
(b) Fall crop ...... 97
4. Tubed tomato price, greenhouse tomato supply and price 99
Conclusions ...... 100
APPENDIX ...... 103
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 152 AUTOBIOGRAPHY ...... 153 y LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Importance of Greenhouse Tomato Production in Ohio, by County Areas, 1949 ...... 2
2 Methods of Display for Greenhouse Tomatoes During Two, Three Week Experimental Periods, November 2-21 and November 30-December 19, 1953 ...... 11
3 Double Change-over Latin Squares and Test Treatments in Six Reta.il Food Stores, November 2-21, Columbus, Ohio, 1953 ...... 14
4 Double Change-over Latin Square and Test Treatments in Six Retail Food Stores, November 30-December 19, Columbus, Ohio, 1953 ...... 15
5 Sales of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Pounds, by Method of Display, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953 ...... 19
6 Sales of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Pounds, by Method of Display, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1553 ...... 20
7 Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Average Tubed Tomato Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Three and Four to Six, November 2-21, 1953 ...... 21
8 Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Three and Four to Six, November 2-21, 1953 .... 22
9 Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Average Tubed Tomato Sales end Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Six, November 2-21, 1954 ...... 22
10 Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Average Tubed Tomato Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Three and Four to Six, November 30- December 19, 1953 ...... 23
vi LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
11 Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Three and Four to Six, November 30-Decemher 19, 1953...... 23
12 Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a. Percentage of Average Tubed Tomato Sales and Per $1,000 of Toted Produce Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Six, November 30-December 19, 1954 ...... 24
13 Pounds of Greenhouse Tomatoes Sold in Cellophane Bags as a Percentage of Total Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds, Treatment B, Six Retail Food Stores, November 2-31, 1953 ...... 27
14 Average Number of Square Feet in Displays of Greenhouse and Tubed Tomatoes Per Week, by Treatments, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2- December 19, 1953 ...... 28
15 Spoilage Loss of Greenhouse and Tubed Tomatoes as a Percentage of Sales, Six Retail Food Stores, November 2-21, November 30-December 19, 1953 ...... 31
16 Experimental Design, Including Four Week Control Period and One Week Special Promotion Period, Twelve Retail Food Stores, Arranged in Three Latin Squares, with Treatments, April 26-June 26, Columbus, Ohio, 1954 ...... 37
17 Array of Radios of C-reenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds to Number of Units of Tubed Tomatoes Sold, Tv/elve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-May 22, 1954 ...... 44
18 Ratios of Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds to Tubed TomatoeSales in Number of Units, Arranged in Three Latin Squares, Twelve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-May 22, 1954 ...... 45
19 Index of Greenhouse Tomato Sales (in Pounds) , ana Index of Ratios of Greenhouse Tomato Sales to Tubed Tomato Sales (in Number of Tubes), Twelve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-May 22, 1954 ...... 47
vii LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
20 Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales Per Store, in Pounds, and Index of Average Sales, by Method of Display, Two Store Groups, Eight Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 51
21 Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales Per Store, in Pounds, Adjusted by Control Period Index, and Index of Average Sales, by Method of Display, Two Store Groups, Eight Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 .. 52
22 Average Ratios of Greenhouse to Tubed Toma,to Soles Per Store, and Index of Average Ratios, Adjusted by Control Period Index, Two Store Groups, Eight Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 54
23 Index of Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds and in Dollars, by Method of Display, Two Groups of Stores, Eight Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 56
24 Total Number of Square Feet in Greenhouse Tomato Displays, by Method of Display, Two Groups of Stores, Eight Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 58
25 Average Greenhouse Toma.to Sales Per Store, in Pounds, and Index of Average Sales Per Store, Three Groups of Four Stores, Twelve Retail Food Stores, Aoril 26- June 26 , 1954 ...... 60
26 Average Radios of Greenhouse to Tubed Tomato Sales Per Store, and Index of Average Ratios Per Store, Three Groups of Four Stores, Twelve Retail Food Stores, April 26-June 26, 1954...... 61
27 Index of Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds, Control Group of Stores and Four Special Promotion Stores, Eight Retail Food Stores, May 24-June 26, 1954 63
28 Index of Reatios of Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, to Tubed Tomato Sales, and Four Special -Promotion Stores, April 25-June 26, 1954 ...... 66
viii LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
29 Index of Average Number of Square Feet in Greenhouse Tomato Displays and Ratios of the Average Number of Square Feet in Greenhouse Tomato Displays to Tubed Tomato Displays, Twelve Retail Food Stores, May 17-June 26, 1954 ...... 68
30 Estimated Cost of Conducting Salad Bowl Promotion in Four Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, May 28-29, 1954 ...... 72
31 Greenhouse Tomato Spoilage Loss (in Pounds) as a Percentage of Total Sales (in Pounds), Eight Retail Food Stores, April 26-June 26, 1954 ...... 75
32 Tubed Tomato Spoilage Loss (in Units) as a Percentage of Total Sales (in Units), Eight Retail Food Stores, April 26-June 26, 1954 ...... 77
33 Measures of Regression of Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Supply (x), and Price(y), Spring Crops, 1948-1953 ... 92
34 Measures of Regression of Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Supply (x) , and Price (y), Fall Crops, 1948-1953 ..... 94
35 Measures of Regression and Estimating Equation of Sixteen City Unloads, (x) and Cincinnati Wholesale Prices of Tubed Tomatoes (y), Soring and Fall Crops, 1951-1953 ...... 95
36 Measures of Regression of Weekly Tubed Tomato Prices (x), and C-reenhouse Tomato Prices (y) , Soring Croo, 1948-1953 ...... ~ ...... 97
37 Measures of Regression of Weekly Tubed Tomato Prices (x), and Greenhouse Tomato Prices (y), Fall Crop, 1948-1953 ...... 97
38 Measures of Regression for Multiple Regression of the Quantity of Greenhouse Tomatoes (X2), and the Price of Tubed Tomatoes (X3) , Upon the Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes (Xi), Spring and Fall Crops, 1948-1953 ...... 101
ix APPENDIX TABLES
Table Page
1 Weekly Greenhouse and Tubed Tomato Sales in Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2- Deceraber IS, 1953, By Method of Display...... 104
2 Weekly Tubed Tomato Sales in Six Retail Food Stores, in Pounds, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19,1953 106
3 ’Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Dollars, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19, 1953 ...... 107
4 Weekly Tubed Tomato Sales in Dollars, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19, 1953 ...... 108
5 ’Weekly Produce Sales in Dollars, Six Reta.il Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19, 1953 109
6 Weekly Greenhouse, Tubed, and Total Tomato Sales in Pounds Per Si,000 of Total Produce Sales, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, Six Weeks, November 2-21, and November 30-December 19, 1953 ...... 110
7 Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales (in Pounds) as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds, by Method of Display, Six Retail Grocery Stores, Columbus, Ohio, Six Weeks, November 2-21, November 30- December 19, 1953 ...... 112
8 Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds), Stores 1-3, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953 .... 113
9 Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds), Stores 4-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953 .... 113
10 Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds), Stores 1-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953 ...... 114
11 Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 1-3, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953 ...... 114
x APPENDIX TABLES (Continued)
Table
12 Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 4-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953 ...... 115
13 Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales (in Pounds) Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 1-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1954 ...... 115
1A Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds), Stores 1-3, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1953 .. 116
15 Variance Table for Greenhouse Toma.to Sales as a Percentage of Tubed. Tomato Sales, (in Pounds) , Stores 4-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1953 ...... 116
16 Variance Table for Greenhouse Toma.to Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds), Stores 1-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1954 .. 117
17 Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 1-3, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1953 ...... 117
18 Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 4-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1953 ...... 118
19 Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales (in Pounds) Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 1-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1954 ...... 118
20 Weekly Spoilage Loss of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Pounds, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21 and November 30-December 19, 1953 ...... 119
21 Weekly Spoilage Loss of Tubed Tomatoes, in Number of Tubes, Six Retail food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21 and November 30-December 19, 1953 .... 120
22 Weekly Greenhouse and Tubed Tomato Sales in Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Nine Weeks, April 26-June 26, Columbus, Ohio, 1954 ...... 121
ad APPENDIX TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
23 Weekly Experimental Sales of Greenhouse and Tubed Tomatoes, Three Latin Squares, Twelve Pweta.il Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 124
24 Tota-l Sales of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Pounds, Adjusted by Control Period Index, Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 127
25 Ratios of Greenhouse Toma.to Seles, (in Pounds), to Tubed Tomato Sales (in Number of Tubes), Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26- June 26,- 1954 ...... 129
26 Ratios of Greenhouse Tomato Sales, (in Pounds) to Tubed Tomato Seles, (in Number of Tubes) Adjusted by Control Period Index, Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 132
27 Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Stores 1-4, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 . 134
28 Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Stores 5-8, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 134
29 Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Stores 1-8, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 135
30 Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Adjusted by Control Period Index, Stores 1-4, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 135
31 Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Adjusted by Control Period Index, Stores 5-8, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 136
32 Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Toma.to Sales, in Pounds, Adjusted by Control Period Index, Stores 1-8, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 136
33 Variance Table for Ratios of Experimental Greenhouse Tomato Sales, (in Pounds) to Tubed Tomato Sales, (in Number of Tubes), Adjusted by Control Period Index, Stores 1-4, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 137
xii APPENDIX TABLES (Continued)
Table Pa-ge
34 Variance Table for Ratios of Experimental Greenhouse Tomato Seles, (in Pounds) to Tubed Tomato Sales, (in Number of Tubes), Adjusted by Control Period Index, Stores 5-8, June 1-26, 1954 1...... 137
35 Variance Table for Ratios of Experimental Greenhouse Tomato Sales, (in Pounds) to Tubed Tomato Sales, (in Number of Tubes), Adjusted by Control Period Index, Stores 1-8, June 1-26, 1954 ...... 138
36 Average Prices of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Twelve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, Arril 26- June 26, 1954 ...... 139
37 Average Prices of Tubed Tomatoes in Twelve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-June 26, 1954 . 140
38 Average Souare Feet Per Week in Greenhouse and Tubed Tomato Displays, Twelve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, Nine Weeks, 1954 ...... 141
39 Spoilage Loss of Greenhouse Tomatoes, Twelve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-June 26, 1954 .. 143
40 Spoilage Loss of Tubed Tomatoes, Twelve Reta.il Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-June 26, 1954 ...... 144
41 Weekly Quantity of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Number of Eight Pound Equivalents, and Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Dollars for Eleven Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest Aoril 15, Spring Crop, Cincinnati Marketing Firm, Ohio, 1948-1950 .... 145
42 Weekly Quantity of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Number of Eight Pound Eauivalents and Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Dollars for Eleven Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest Aoril 15, Spring Crop, Cincinnati Marketing Firm, Ohio, 1951-1953 .... 146
43 Weekly Quantity of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Number of Eight Pound Equivalents and Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Dollars, for Thirteen Weeks Beginning with Week'Nearest October 15, Fall Crop, Cincinnati Marketing Firm, Ohio, 1948-1950 .... 147
xiii APPENDIX TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
44 Weekly Quantity of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Humber of Eight Pound Equivalents and Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Dollars, for Thirteen Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest October 15, Pall Crop, Cincinnati Marketing Firm, Ohio, 1951-1953 ...... 148
45 Carlot Unloads of Tubed or Repack Tomatoes in Sixteen Major Cities, Eleven Weeks Beginning with the Week Nearest April 15, in the Spring, Thirteen Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest October 15, in the Pall, United States, 1951-1953 ...... 149
46 Average Weekly Wholesale Price Cartons of Ten Tubed or Repack Tomatoes, Eleven Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest April 15, Cincinnati, Ohio, Spring, 1948-1953 150
47 Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Cartons of Ten Tubed or Repack Tomatoes, Thirteen Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest October 15, Cincinnati, Ohio, Pall, 1948-1953 ...... 151
ti
xiv LIST OP CHARTS
Chart Page
1 Average Weekly Wholesale Prices of Eight Pound Baskets of Medium Greenhouse Tomatoes In Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1951 to January 1954 ..... 3
2 Average Weekly Wholesale Prices of Cartons of Ten Tubes of Repack Tomatoes In Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1951 to January 1954 ...... 6
3 Index of ’Weekly Greennouse Tomato Sales in Pounds, Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Aoril 26-June 26, 1954 ... 6'4
4 Relationship of the Weekly Supply to the Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, by Three Year Periods and for Six Years, Spring Crops, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1948-1953 ...... 91
5 Relationship of the ’Weekly Supply to the Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, by Three Year Periods and for Six Years, Pall Crops, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1948-1953 ...... 93
6 Relationship of the Average Weekly Wholesale Price Per Carton of Tubed Tomatoes to the Average Weekly Wholesale Price Per Basket of Greenhouse Tomatoes, by Three Year Periods and for Six Years, Spring Crops, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1948-1953 ...... 96
7 Relationship of the Average Weekly Wholesale Pride Per Carton of Tubed Tomatoes to the Average Weekly ’Wholesale Price Per Basket of Greenhouse Tomatoes, by Three Year Periods and for Six Years, Pall Crops, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1948-1953 ...... ~...... 98
xv LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Salad Bowl and Demonstrator for Sales Promotion of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Four Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, May ,28-29, 1954 ...... 41
xvi INTRODUCTION
Importance of Greenhouse Tomato Production in Ohio
Ohio is the leading state in the production of greenhouse to matoes in the United States. According to the Special Horticultural
Report of the 1950 Census, Ohio accounted for one-third of the total
number of growers and two-thirds of the total wholesale value of greenhouse tomatoes in the United States. Ohio greenhouse tomato production had a wholesale value of nearly seven million dollars in
1949.
Greenhouse and nursery products ranked eighth as a source of
cash farm receipts in Ohio in 1953. Total cash income from these
products amounted to $48,237,000. In comparison, truck crops were
ninth and fruit eleventh in importance. Greenhouse and nursery
crops were the leading source of farm income in five Ohio counties
in 1953.
About two-thirds of the Ohio greenhouse tomatoes are produced in
Cuyahoga and Lorain counties in northeastern Ohio (Table l). Lucas
county in northwestern Ohio and Hamilton county in southwestern Ohio
are the other most important greenhouse tomato areas.
1 2
Table 1. Importance of Greenhouse Tomato Production in Ohio, by County Areas, 1949
Wholesale Value Percent of County Area in Dollars Total
Cuyahoga, Lorain, Medina 4,555,588 66.9
Lucas, Wood 1,555,223 17.0
Hamilton, Montgomery, Butler 576,866 8.5
Franklin, Fairfield, Pickaway, Licking 167,504 2.5
All other counties 348.369 5.1
Total for State 6,803,550 100.0
Source: United States Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Agriculture: 1950. Volume V, Special Reports, Part I, Horticultural Specialties. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1952.
Marketing Greenhouse Tomatoes in Ohio
Two crops of greenhouse tomatoes are produced each year in Ohio.
The spring crop is normally marketed from early April to the middle of July. The fall crop is marketed from October until early January
(Chart l). The spring crop extends over a longer period than the fall crop. Approximately twice as many tomatoes are produced and marketed during the spring as the fell season. Many of the growers plant only the spring crop of tomatoes and this includes most of those
in the Cincinnati area. Some growers plant part of their acreage to lettuce, cucumbers or other greenhouse crops in the spring and some growers plant all of their acreage to other crops during the fall. Chart 1. Average Weekly Wholesale Prices of Eight Pound 3askets of Medium Greenhouse Tomatoes In Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1951 to January 19Sh
Dollars
Li.oo
3.00
2.00
1.00 Cleveland Cincinnati
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Mar.. Apr. May June July Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Mar. April May June July
Fall - 1951 Spring - 1952 Fall - 1952 Spring - 1953
Month and Season
Source: Daily Market News Reports, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture Greenhouse tomatoes have been marketed in cardboard baskets for many years. Some greenhouse tomatoes, especially the small sizes, have recently been marketed in consumer sized packages, but most are still sent to market in baskets. Practically all greenhouse tomatoes produced in Ohio are marketed through private or cooperative wholesale agencies. In the Cleveland and Toledo areas, about one-half of the tomatoes are shipped to out-of-state markets.
Greenhouse tomatoes are merchandised in several ways in retail food stores. They are displayed in the eight pound baskets in which they were shipped, in bulk, in consumer sized packages packed by the grower or retailer, or in various combinations of the above.
One of the most significant factors affecting the marketing of greenhouse tomatoes is the increasing competition from shipped-in fresh tomatoes. Most of these tomatoes are produced in Texas and
Florida. Some tomatoes are received in Ohio markets from California
during the fall. Formerly these shipped tomatoes were all harvested when green and shipped to terminal markets in the north where they were ripened under artifical conditions. After ripening they were placed in consumer sized packages. These "repack" or "tubed" to matoes were generally packed 10 "tubes" to a master container for
sale. More recently, however, some southern growers have been ship ping so called "vine-ripened" tomatoes that have been harvested at a
more nearly mature stage than was formerly the case. These tomatoes
are usually merchandised in bulk in much the same manner as greenhouse
tomatoes and are even more likely to be mistaken for greenhouse to
matoes than those in tubes. Shipped-in repack and vine-ripened tomatoes are marketed in all months except July, August and September, when local field grown to matoes are marketed. Repack tomatoes are available during the entire greenhouse tomato marketing season (Chart 2).
The development of improved production, transportation, ripening, packaging and merchandising methods for repacked tomatoes has con
stantly improved their quality. This is expected to make them more
competitive with greenhouse tomatoes and to have an even greater ef
fect on greenhouse tomato prices. Because of this increasing com
petition improved merchandising practices are needed for greenhouse
tomatoes. The trend towards prepackaging makes additional study of
methods of meeting the needs of self-service retail merchandising of
even greater importance.
PURPOSE OP THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to increase financial returns to
greenhouse toma.to growers by improved retail and wholesale merchan
dising practices for greenhouse tomatoes. The objective of the re
tail merchandising phase of the study was to determine the effect of
display methods and point-of-sale promotion upon the rate of sale of
greenhouse tomatoes, and to make recommendations based upon the re
sults. Other factors which might be related to the retail sales of
greenhouse tomatoes were also studied so that they could be consid
ered in developing a merchandising program for greenhouse tomatoes.
The most important of these were spoilage losses and the sales of
greenhouse tomatoes relative to the spoilage losses and sales of
other fresh tomatoes. Chart 2. Average Weekly Wholesale Prices of Cartons of Ten Tubes of Repack Tomatoes In Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1951 to January 195k
Dollar* k.OO
3.00
2.00
1.00
11 - Cleveland Cincinnat.
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June
Fall - 1951 Spring - 1952 Fall - 1952 Spring - 1953
Month and Season
Sourcet Daily Market News Reports, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture In order to maximize the financial returns through wholesale merchandising of greenhouse tomatoes a knowledge of supply-price re lationships is basic. It is needed to develop a complete marketing and promotion program for greenhouse tomatoes, from the point of pro duction to the point of sale. Therefore, the second major objective
of this study was to determine the wholesale supply-price relation
ships for greenhouse tomatoes.
Retail Merchandising
The study of retail merchandising was made to determine, by means of a controlled experiment, if the rate of sales of greenhouse
tomatoes could be increased by different methods of display and sales
promotion, and to determine the amount of spoilage loss of greenhouse
tomatoes. This study included a comoarison of sales rates and
spoilage losses of greenhouse tomatoes with those of tubed tomatoes.
Method of display
The major aim of this phase of the study was to determine what
method of display would result in the greatest total sales of green
house tomatoes. Studies of other commodities indicate that varia
tions in methods of display result in great differences in rates of
sale. The highest rates of sale have been from displays made up of
bulk and packages. Since greenhouse tomatoes have normally been
displayed entirely in bulk, the ma.jor comparisons involved this
method with bulk a.nd some form of package. Other factors involved
in the retail merchandising of greenhouse tomatoes will be discussed
in the methodology and results. Promotion
Promotion methods were tested to determine hoth the immediate and residual effects upon the rate of sales of greenhouse tomatoes
in order that promotion might he evaluated as a means of increasing
total returns from the sales of greenhouse tomatoes. A two-day,
snecial display type of nromotion and a continuous, product identifi
cation promotion method were tested.
Spoilage loss
Since there is no information available concerning the spoilage
loss of greenhouse tomatoes in retail stores, one of the purposes of
this study was to determine the rate of spoilage loss in food stores,
and to determine the loss of greenhouse relative to the loss of
tubed tomatoes. An attempt was made to discover the causes of
spoilage so that the amount of loss could be reduced.
Supply-Price Relationships
The objective of this phase of the project was to analyze avail
able data of supply-price relationships so that these relationships
could be used in wholesale price prediction and in planning week to
week promotion and marketing practices.
The supply of greenhouse tomatoes and the price of tubed toma
toes at the wholesale level were analyzed for use in predicting the
wholesale price of greenhouse tomatoes. Present day marketing prac
tices make the prediction of supply and price at least a week in ad
vance almost a necessity. SECTION I
RETAIL MERCKANDISING-
Pell Crop Study - 1953
Methodology
The first phase of the retail merchandising study was conducted
during the fall of 1953. The experiment was completed within eight weeks since the supply end quality of tomatoes are adequate for a re
tail experiment only during a relatively short period.
The principal purpose of this study was to determine the method
or methods of displaying greenhouse tomatoes that would result in
greatest total sales. It was necessary to set up a controlled ex
periment in retail food stores in order to do this because many fac
tors influence the retail sales of greenhouse tomatoes. The following
factors or variables would be expected to influence retail sales of
greenhouse tomatoes at any specific time or over a oeriod of time:
Method of displaying greenhouse and other fresh tomatoes.
Size and location of display - greenhouse and other
tomatoes.
Price of greenhouse and other fresh tomatoes.
Quality of greenhouse and other tomatoes.
Consumer characteristics - nationality, education, income.
Other foods (especially fresh produce) - selection, quality,
prices and other merchandising factors.
Promotion - extent of advertising or emphasizing greenhouse
tomatoes, other tomatoes and other produce items. 10
Store characteristics - management, personnel, policies,
size and location.
Time - changing relationships between any of the foregoing.
In order to measure the effects of display methods upon the rate of sales of greenhouse tomatoes, all of the other variables must be held constant or their effects must be neutralized or balanced out in so far as possible. The experiment was set up to accomplish this
in the following manner.
1. Selection of stores and time period
The test stores were selected according to location in the city
of Columbus and were all part of one corporate chain. It was felt
that these stores would include a representative sample of consumers
in the city and that the results would be applicable to other retail
food store operations in Columbus and other cities with similar popu
lation characteristics. It was actually consumer acceptance that
was being determined. 3y using the stores within a large chain or
ganization, it was felt that they v/ould be fairly representative of
all supermarket operations, which are the most important outlets for
greenhouse tomatoes.
Only six retail stores were selected for the initial merchandis
ing study because of the experimental design which will be discussed
in a later section.
The initial study renuired six weeks for completion. It was
conducted during the period from November 2 to December 19, excluding
Thanksgiving week, and consisted of two, three week periods. 11
2. Selection of treatments
Table 2. Methods of Display for Greenhouse Tomatoes During Two, Three Week Experimental Periods, November 2-21 and November 30-December 19, 1953
First Period Second Period
Bulk single layer Bulk single layer
Bulk in baskets Polyethylene bags
Bulk single layer plus cellophane bags Cellophane bags
In order to find improved methods of merchandising in terms of
increased total sales, it was necessary to have a standard of com parison. Tne usual or most common method of display was selected as
a control or standard. This method was bulk single layer which was
the normal practice in three of the six experimental stores. This
method consisted of displaying the tomatoes in a single layer on a
table, display island or a refrigerated produce case. Another common
method of display was in the baskets used to ship the tomatoes. The
tomatoes were left in the baskets and placed in a refrigerated pro
duce ca.se or on a display island. Three of the six experimental
stores employed this type of display as a normal practice.
The bulk single layer method of display was selected a.s the con
trol method to be included in both three week experiments, as a
standard for comparing the effectiveness of the test treatments. The
basket method of display was also included in one of the experiments
because it was being used in some stores and it was desired to com
pere its sales effectiveness with that of the bulk method. 12
Three additional treatments or display methods were selected.
Two types of nackeges, cellophane and polyethylene bags were selected
to determine the effect of displays in which all of the tomatoes were
packaged. One method of display consisted of tomatoes in ventilated
cellophane bags with dimensions of 4M X 2 3/4" X 10 3/4".
The other all-packaged method of display employed the use of
ventilated polyethylene freezer bags. These bags were 4" X 2" X 12"
in size.
The third test treatment consisted of a combination display of
cellophane bags with bulk single layer. Three methods of display
were tested during each of the three week periods (Table 2) .
All the packaged tomatoes were packaged in the stores from the
tomatoes in the 8 pound baskets ordered from the chain warehouse. The
weight of the tomatoes in each bag varied from 10 to 20 ounces since
the tomatoes were of mixed sizes. Even though the size or weight of
package might have an effect upon sales, by offering an ample selec
tion of a rather wide range of sizes (10-20 ounces) it was felt that
the effect of packaging could be determined without holding weight
constant. Prom two to five tomatoes were placed in each beg, and,
insofar as possible, the tomatoes in each bag were fairly uniform in
size.
3. Experimental design
In view of the number end nature of the non-test variables and
the relatively short time period in which the retail experiment had
to be completed, the let in square experimental design was selected 13 from the many alternatives.^" The latin square design consists of a double grouping of variables to be tested so that each variable ap pears once in each row and once in each column. How and column dif ferences are eliminated and the true differences between the methods
of display (hereafter called treatments) can be determined more ac
curately.
The effective use of the latin square requires that the major
sources of variation be represented by rows and columns. Produce
sales in reta.il stores vary considerably from day to day and week to
week, and between stores. Therefore, it was decided that time and
store differences constituted the major source of variation in green
house tomato sales and they were assigned to rows and columns respec
tively.
Two replications of the double change-over latin square design
was used.-*- This design is well suited for short time periods and
also makes it possible to measure carry-over effects of each treat
ment upon the treatment immediately succeeding it. This feature will
be discussed in the analysis of results.
Table 3 illustrates the double change-over latin scraare. This
design employs two 3 X 3 latin square designs with the sequence of
treatments (A,B,C) in the vertical columns reversed in the second
1 Henderson, Peter L.. ."Methods of Research in Marketing, Paper Ho. 3," Department of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Ithaca, Hew York, July, 1952. 14
3 X 3 block (stores 4, 5, and 6). As mentioned before, the latin square design makes it possible to measure store (column) and time
(row) differences because each treatment appears once in each row and column of each latin square. Therefore, the number of treatments is the same as the number of rows and columns. In the double change-over design, the time periods and treatments are the same, but the stores axe different in each latin square. Thus, three treatments were
tested in each double change-over design, and since a six week pe
riod allowed one replication of this design, a total of six different
treatments were to be tested.
Table 3. Double Change-over Latin Squares and Test Treatments in Six Retail Food Stores, November 2-21, Columbus, Ohio, 1953
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 (Treatment)
November 2-7 A* B C A B C
November 9-14 B** C A C A B
November 16-21 Q*** A B B C A
* Bulk in eight pound baskets ** Bulk single layer and cellophane bags *** Bulk single layer
In order to make comparisons of the results obtained during each
period, the same control treatment was used in each design. Thus,
four other treatments were tested, two during each experimental pe
riod. These four treatments plus the control treatment were randomly
assigned to the two double change-over designs (Tables 3 and 4). The 15 six stores were also randomly placed in the design.
4. Procedure
a. Non-test variables
The latin square experimental design minimizes the effects of store and time differences upon sales, and also tends to minimize the effects of price changes of the test product when all of the stores have identical prices.
The effects of tuhed tomato and total produce sales upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes were eliminated in the mathematical an alysis by a procedure which will be explained in the analysis of re sults.
Table 4. Double Change-over Latin Sauare and Test Treatments in Six Retail Pood Stores, November 30- December 19, Columbus, Ohio, 1953
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 (Treatment)
November 30-December 5 D* E F D EF
December 7-12 E** F D F D E
December 14-19 D E E F D
* Polyethylene bags ** Cellophane bags *** Bulk single layer
Several other variable factors were controlled through the co
operation of the store management. A list of these variables and method of control follows. 16
(1) Size and location of greenhouse and tubed tomato displays.
Insofar as possible, the store space devoted to the display
of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes before the experiment bega,n
was maintained or held constant throughout the experiment
period. In the three stores that were displaying greenhouse
tomatoes in refrigerated cases before the experiment, the
displays were moved to island displays because of auslity
factors and to facilitate setting up the test displays. The
tubed tomato displays were not changed even when they were
in refrigerated cases. Once the experiment began, both
greenhouse and tubed tomato displays remained in the same
location unless store policy necessitated a move. In this
event the displays were kept within the same general area
so that they would be exposed to the same customer traffic
as before. The amount of display space in terms of square
feet were held nearly constant for both greenhouse and tubed
tomatoes once the experiment began.
(2) Identification and price. A placard bearing the nrice per
pound and the words "Greenhouse Tomatoes" was placed on the
greenhouse tomato display in each store. All packaged
greenhouse tomatoes bore the price per.pound and price per
package on the package label. All tubed tomato displays had
the price visibly marked on a card above the display.
(3) Sales units. Greenhouse tomatoes were priced by the pound
in all cases. As previously mentioned, packaged greenhouse
tomatoes v/ere priced by the pound but the package weights 17
varied according to the number and size of tomatoes in each
package. The range in weights was between 10 and 20 ounces
with the average at about one pound, and the number of
tomatoes in each package ranged from two to five.
The tubed tomatoes were uniform in size and weight.
Both tubes of three and tubes of four tomatoes were avail
able, but most of the tubes contained three tomatoes. The
tubes of three tomatoes weighed from 13 to 14|- ounces while
the tubes of four ranged from 14f to 15^ ounces.
(4) Quality. Some variation in the duality of tomatoes occurred
over the six week experimental period due to weather con
ditions, handling, etc., but since the source of supply was
the same for all stores, the quality was substantially the
same in all stores-
(5) Price. Both the absolute prices and the price spread between
greenhouse and tubed tomatoes would be expected to have an
effect upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes. However,
since prices were the same in all stores, the effect of
price changes upon greenhouse tomato sales was not believed
to have significantly influenced the relative effect of each
treatment or method of display. This was true because of
the experimental design, ie., all stores had the same prices
each week and each treatment was offered in two stores each
week. Thus, assuming that a price change for either tubed
or greenhouse tomatoes or both would have the same or nearly
the same effect upon a given treatment in all stores, effect 18
of price changes upon the display method would be eliminated
or at least minimized in the results.
(6) Time period. Each treatment was tested for a period of one
week in each store. Sales during the period Tuesday through
Saturday were used to determine the results. Sales on Mon
days v:ere not used because it required most of the day to
set up' the new display in the stores. No attempt was made
to test the first part of the week (Tuesday through Wednes
day) against the last part of the week (Thursday through
Saturday) since the sales during the first part of the week
v/ere often too small to provide a valid estimate of the
effect of treatments upon sales.
(?) Other factors. It was recognized that many other variables
might influence greenhouse tomato sales and complicate the
results of any experiment to determine the effects of dis
play methods upon sales. Many of these factors fall in the
cs/tegory of store, time or error variation and were isolated
in the variance analysis. Others v/ere discussed and ad
justed for in the analysis of results,
b. Record taking
At least tv/o visits were made to every store each day, in the morning and afternoon. A complete inventory of all tomatoes on hand
and the amount received was recorded each morning together with the
spoilage loss. Daily sales v/ere then calculated. The enumerators
were responsible for policing the displays and maintaining an adequate 19 selection of both tubed and greenhouse tomatoes. The enumerators also performed all reouired packaging in the stores.
Store personnel were encouraged to save all spoiled or other wise unsalable tubed and greenhouse tomatoes so that the enumerators could weigh and record all losses during their next visit to the store.
Analysis and Results
1. Method of Display
Tables 5 and 6 show the sales of greenhouse tomatoes by treat ment or method of display.
Table 5. Sales of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Pounds, by Method of Display, Six Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, Hovember 2-21, 1953
Store Method of Disulay 1-3 4-6 1-6 (Pounds)
Bulk in eight pound baskets (A) 299.50* 275.75 575.25*
Bulk single layer and cellophane bags (B) 400.75 251.75 652.50
Bulk single layer (C) 370.50 278.25 648.75
’"Includes 24 pounds sold in cellophane bags.
Source: Appendix Table 1. 20
Table 6 . Sales of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Pounds, by Method of Display, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, ■November 30-December 19, 1953
Store Method of Disnlav 1-3 4-6 1-6 (Pounds)
Polyethylene bags (D) 315.75 208.75 524.50
Cellophane bags (E) 221.25 174.25 395.50
Bulk single leyer (F) 247.75 174.00 421.75
Source: Appendix Table 1.
These sales v/ere not adjusted for differences between stores in total produce sales or tubed tomato sales and are shown only to indi cate the actual number of pounds of greenhouse tomatoes sold in re lation to the various treatments during the experimental period,
a. Non-test variables
In order to determine whether or not there were significant dif ferences between the treatments based upon sales of greenhouse to matoes, the possible effects of tubed tomato sales and total produce
sales were removed. This was done in two different ways; (l) by
converting weekly greenhouse tomato sales into pound sales per 1,000
dollars of produce sales and , (2) by expressing greenhouse tomato
sales in pounds as a percentage or ratio of tubed tomato sales in pounds.
The first method of adjustment eliminated the effect of dif
ferences in total produce sales between stores and time periods but
did not necessarily account for a. possible relationship between
tubed and greenhouse tomato sales. A significant change in greenhouse 21 tomato sales in relation to tubed tomato sales as a result of a given method of display could occur regardless of total produce sales.
Similarly, a significant change in greenhouse tomato sales in terms of produce sales could occur as a result of a change in total tomato
sales and not the method of display. It was necessary to use ratios
in order to determine the effects of methods of display upon the
sales of greenhouse tomatoes relative to the sales of tubed tomatoes.
Therefore, both the ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales
and greenhouse sales per 1,000 dollars of total produce sales v/ere
analyzed to measure the relative effects of the different methods of
display.
b. Analysis of variance
Table 7. Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Average Tubed Tomato Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Three and Pour to Six, November 2-21, 1953
Store 1 - 3 4 - 6 Method of Disolay Average Index* Average Index* (Percent)
Bulk in eight pound baskets (A) 61.56 85.9 56.10 79.9
Bulk single layer plus cellophane bags (B) 92.90 129.7 55.52 79.1
Bulk single layer (C) 71.65 100.0 70.22 100.0
*Bulk single layer = 100.
Source: Appendix Table 7. 22
Table 8 . Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Three and Pour to Six, November 2-21, 1953
Store 1-3 4-6 Method of Disnlav Average Index** Average Index** (Pounds) (Percent) (Pounds) (Percent)
Bulk in eight pound baskets (A) 43.75 82.5 52.94 97.5 Bulk single layer plus cellophane bags (3) 68.89* 130.0* 49.16 90.6 Bulk single layer (C) 53.01 100.0 54.29 100.0
* Significant at the .01 level. ** Bulk single layer = 100.0. Source: Appendix Table 6 .
Table 9. Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Average Tubed Tomato Sales and Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Six, November 2-21, 1942
Greenhouse Tomato Sales Percentage of Per $1 ,000 Produce Tubed Sales Method of Disnlav Average Index* Average Index* (Percent) (Pounds) (Percent)
Bulk in eight pound baskets (A) 58.83 . 82.24 48.35 90.12 Bulk single layer plus cellophane bags (B) 74.21 104.62 59.02 110.01
Bulk single layer (C) 70.93 100.00 53.65 100.00
* Bulk single layer - 100. Source: Appendix Tables 6 and 7. 23
Table 10- Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Average Tubed. Tomato Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Three and Pour to Six, November 30-December 19, 1953
Store 1-3 4-6 Method of Disnlay Average Index* Average Index* (Percent)
Polyethylene bags (D) 67.49 91.6 61.38 101.6
Cellophand bags (E) 78.48 - 106.5 50.25 83.2
Bulk single layer (F) 73.68 100.0 60.40 100.0
*Bulk single layer - 100.0 Source: Appendix Table 7.
Table 11. Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Three and Pour to Six, November 30-December IS, 1953
Store 1-3______4-6 . Method of Disolay Average Index* Average Index* (Founds) (Percent) (Pounds) (Percent)
Polyethylene bags (D) 47.33 105.4 36.72 120.6
Cellophane bags (E) 35.03 78.0 29.31 96.3
Bulk single layer (P) 44.91 100.0 30.44 100.0
*Bulk single layer - 100.0 Source: Appendix Table 6 . 24
Table 12. Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Average Tubed Tomato Sales and Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, by Method of Display, Stores One to Six, November 30-December 19, 1954
Greenhouse Tomato Sales Percentage of Tubed Per $1.000 Produce Sales Method of Disulav Average Index* Average Index* (Percent) (Pounds) (Percent)
Polyethylene bags (D) 64.44 96.12 42.03 111.54
Cellophane bags (E) 64.37 96.02 32.17 85.38
Bulk single layer (3T) 67.04 100.00 37.68 100.00
*Bulk single layer - 100.
Source: Appendix Table 6 and 7.
Appendix Tables 8 through 19 show the results of the variance analyses for the four groups of stores and for all six stores com bined during each period. The variance ratios for the first three weeks for greenhouse tomato sales expressed as a percentage of tubed
tomato sales are shown in Appendix Tables 8-10. There were no signif
icant differences at the five percent level due to method of display
A, B or C in either group of three stores or in the six stores com
bined. However, in the analysis of variance for greenhouse tomato
sales adjusted for total produce sales, there were significant dif
ferences between treatments in stores 1 to 3 but not in stores 4 to
6 . (Appendix Tables 11 and 12). When sales from the six stores were
analysed there were no significant differences between treatments
(Appendix Table 13) .
During the second three weeks of the experiment, there were no
significant differences in sales due to treatments in either store 25 group or for both groups combined regardless of whether greenhouse tomato sales were adjusted for total produce sales or expressed as a percentage of tubed sales (Appendix Tables 14-19).
Tables 7, 8 , 10 and 11 show the greenhouse tomato mean sales by- treatments and the sales indexes based upon the control method of display for each store group. These treatment sales means axe the ones that were tested for significant differences by variance anal ysis. As mentioned previously, the only case where a significant difference occurred was in stores 1 to 3 during the first three weeks when greenhouse tomato sales were adjusted for total produce
sales. Sales were significantly greater when the tomatoes were dis played in bulk plus cellophane bags (B) than when displayed in eight pound baskets (A) (Table 8) . When greenhouse tomato sales v/ere ex pressed as a percentage of tubed sales, however, there v/as no signif
icant difference in sales between these treatments, although the mean sales for treatment B was considerably greater than for treat ment A (Table 7). Therefore, there v/ere no significant differences
in greenhouse tomato sales relative to tubed tomato sales due to methods of display- The significant difference that occurred when greenhouse tomato sales were adjusted by total produce sales v/as ap
parently due to an increase in total tomato sales relative to produce
sales and was not due to methods of display.
Tables 9 and 12 show the greenhouse tomato mean sales and sales
indexes by treatments for all six stores combined during the two ex
perimental periods. There v/ere no significant differences in greenhouse tomato sales relative to tubed tomato sales or in terms of total produce sales. During the first three weeks, sales were highest when the tomatoes were displayed in bulk single layer and cellophane bags. Greenhouse tomato sales by treatment during the second period were nearly the same, relative to tubed sales, but were considerably higher in terms of total produce sales when displayed in polyethylene bags.
Even though there were no significant differences in greenhouse tomato sales due to methods of display tested, it is of interest to note the percentage of greenhouse sales made up by packaged tomatoes when both bulk and cellophane packages were offered for sale in the
stores (Treatment B) (Table 13). There was considerable variation between stores, particularly between store six and the other five
stores. Only about four pounds out of 100 were sold in cellophane packages in store six when both bulk and packaged tomatoes were of fered for sale. This store was in one of the lowest income neighbor hoods in the city, and had the lowest ratio of greenhouse to tubed
tomato sales during the experimental period (Appendix Table 7). 27
Table 13. Pounds of Greenhouse Tomatoes Sold in Cellophane Bagjs as a Percentage of Total Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds, Treatment B, Six Retail Food Stores*, November 2-21, 1953
Percent Sold Percent Sold Store in Packages in Bulk Total (Percent)
1 28.97 71.03 100.00
2 64.28 35.72 100.00
3 32.92 67.08 100.00
4 49.93 50.07 100.00
5 48.23 51.77 100.00
6 3.85 96.15 100.00
Average 32.56 67.44 100.00
♦Treatment B was tested for one week in each store.
(1) size of display.
The size of greenhouse and tubed tomato displays in each store were held as near constant as possible. There v/as little difference between treatments in the amount of display spa.ce devoted to green house and tubed tomatoes (Table 14). It was assumed that there was not enough variation in size of display among treatments to influence the results significantly. 28
Table 14. Average Number of Square Peet in Displays of Greenhouse and Tubed Tomatoes Per Week, by Treatments, Six Hetail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19, 1953
Display Treatment Greenhouse Tubed (Square Peet)
November 2-21
Bulk in baskets 5.9 4.9
Bulk single layer plus cellophane bags 5.9 5.1
Bulk single layer 5.7 4.9
November 30-December 19
Polyethylene bags 5.6 5.1
Cellophane bags 4.9 4.9
Bulk single layer 4.9 4.9
(2) Price,
As mentioned before, the nature of the latin square design mini
mizes the effects of price upon the experimental results when the
prices of both greenhouse and tubed tomatoes are the same in all
stores for each period. Even though price effects might not be com
pletely eliminated, there are no means for determining the effects of
price in the variance analysis. Covariance analysis would be of no
value because prices of both greenhouse and tubed tomatoes v/ere
identical in all stores during any given week. Thus, variations in
sales due to price would all be included in time (row) variance.
An observation concerning price is that of the manner in which
greenhouse and tubed tomatoes are priced for retail sale. Greenhouse 29 tomatoes were priced "by the pound in all cases during this study, which is the conventional method in retail food stores. Tuhed to matoes were priced hy the unit or tube which is also the conventional method. A unit or tube of tubed tomatoes weighs less than one pound, however, which gives this product an advantage if consumers regard a tube as containing one pound of tomatoes. Comparing one pound of greenhouse tomatoes to one tube of tubed tomatoes does not give a
true comparison of the relative cost of the two products. Since this
situation existed in all stores, it would not be expected to affect
the experimental results, but it definitely must be considered by
those who merchandise greenhouse tomatoes— either packaged or bulk.
(3) Carryover.
One of the factors that might be expected to affect the experi
mental sales of greenhouse tomatoes is the carryover effect of the
method or methods of merchandising practiced during the preceeding
week or weeks. In other words, a type of merchandising or display
would have an effect upon sales not only during the week that it was
used, but also during the next several weeks regardless of the dis
play method or methods used.
Sales during any week might be influenced by the methods of dis
play used during the previous weeks. This carryover effect should be
removed in order to obtain a valid estimate of the effect of any
given treatment upon sal.es. Henderson developed the double change- o over latin square design used in this experiment.'" This method
2 Henderson, Peter L., op. cit. 30 rests upon the assumption that the carryover or residual effects of a given method of display (treatment) does not go beyond the ensuing time period. In other words, the carryover effect of a given treat ment in a. given store can be entirely measured during the following week when another treatment is being tested. It is logical to assume, however, that carryover effects axe compounded v/henever another time period and a different treatment appear.
In this experiment, carryover effects were not considered be cause of the serious limita,tions of the procedure renuired to measure them. It was felt that carryover effects, even though present, would tend to be minimized by the latin square design, and that the results might be less valid by the use of any technique to remove these ef fects.
2. Spoilage loss.
The loss records for stores one, three and five were more com plete than for the other stores and the date, for these stores are
reported separately (Table 15).
There was considerable variation in the spoilage loss of green
house and tubed tomatoes between stores and between weeks. This was
apparently due to several factors such as differences in the way
store personnel handled the tomatoes, rate of turnover in the stores,
ouality of the tomatoes upon arrival at the stores and other factors. 31
Table 15. Spoilage Loss of Greenhouse and Tubed Tomatoes as a Percentage of Sales*, Six Retail Pood Stores, November 2-21, November 30-December 19, 1953
Store Week 1 3 5 Average 2 4 6 Average (Percent)
1 Greenhouse 0.7 10.4 0.4 3.2 2.3 1.2 0.6 1.5 Tubed 1.0 23.6 8.5 7.3 1.8 1.1 0.3 0.9
2 Greenhouse 0.8 15.2 1.2 3.4 3.4 0.0 2.0 1.7 Tubed 2.2 7.6 8.2 4.8 2.6 1.6 0.4 1.3
3 Greenhouse 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.6 1.1 4.4 4.1 3.0 Tubed 13.8 12.3 21.9 14.8 5.1 0.6 1.0 1.4
4 Greenhouse 7.8 0.2 23.1 7.4 0.0 1.0 2.6 1.2 Tubed 19.3 19.2 37.1 22.2 6.8 5.2 1.4 3.4
5 Greenhouse 8.8 4.1 31.0 10.8 0.4 4.2 3.0 2.6 Tubed 26.8 22.5 26.9 25.7 6.0 4.5 10.8 8.0
6 Greenhouse 1.8 6.4 0.6 3.1 2.9 5.2 2.1 3.2 Tubed 3.2 6.0 11.5 4.8 8.6 0.0 13.6 7.5
Average Greenhouse 3.9 5.3 8.0 5.2 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.2 Tubed 8.8 15.2 18.1 12.0 5.2 1.7 3.9 3.4
*Based upon weight.
Source: Appendix Tables 1 and 20.
Spoilage loss in stores one, three and five was carefully and completely recorded so that these figures should be fairly repre sentative of all of the stores in this study. The six week average
spoilage loss as a percentage of sales was more than five percent for greenhouse and nearly 12 percent for tubed tomatoes in these three stores. There was considerable difference between stores due uartly to the above mentioned factors. Store number five had the 32 highest spoilage rate of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes, yet from the enumerators' observation it appeared that the employees of this store did the best job of handling and merchandising tomatoes and in record ing spoilage loss. These results suggest that spoilage might have actually been just as great in the other stores, but that the records in other stores were not complete.
The average rate of loss in stores one, three and five for the entire six weeks was more than twice as great for tubed as for green house tomatoes (Table 15). Tubed tomatoes presented ouite a problem in the stores because a unit or tube had to be broken open whenever one spoiled tomato was noticed. The remaining two tomatoes had to be sold in bulk or repackaged. It v/as observed that the tubed to matoes did not sell as well in bulk, and many of them were unsalable after remaining in bulk for several days. They often ended up in the greenhouse tomato display. Another problem was that of detecting spoiled tomatoes in the tubes. Only about one-half of each tomato was visible in the tube, and there v/ere often one or more spoiled tomatoes that v/ere not detected until the tube began to leak and emit a. bad odor.
It took considerable time to police the tubed tomato display in the stores, especially when several tubes had to be opened in order to remove spoiled tomatoes.
The tubed tomatoes were frequently displayed in the refrigerated case, but a. "dummy" bottom was always used to build the display, and the temperature was always above 50 degrees around the display when checked. Cartons or master containers of tubed tomatoes were usually 33 kept in the refrigerated compartments below the refrigerated produce cases in four of the stores. The temperature varied considerably in these compartments and ranged between 42 and 55 degrees when checked at intervals. It was very likely that temperatures below 55 degrees increased the rate of deterioration and the amount of spoilage loss
’when tubed tomatoes v/ere placed in these coolers before they were displayed for sale.
Greenhouse tomatoes were displayed on unrefrigerated display tables or islands in all stores. These tables v/ere covered with a rubber pad in all cases. Four of the stores normally stored green house tomatoes in the refrigerated compartments of the uroduce dis play cases before they were displayed for sale unless all of the to matoes received could be immediately placed on the display. Since
the greenhouse tomatoes v/ere often not fully ripe upon arrival at the
stores, refrigeration was undesirable and prevented the tomatoes from
ripening properly as well as increasing the rate of spoilage. Many
of the refrigerated tomatoes took on a mottled apoearance when dis
played for a day or two.
The spoilage rates during this study could undoubtedly have been
reduced by better handling methods in the stores, especially if the
tomatoes had not been refrigerated. There is an opportunity for the
producers and distributors of both greenhouse and tubed tomatoes to
help reduce the amount of spoilage loss through education in proper
handling methods for these products in retail stores. 34
Conclusions and Recommendations
Significant differences "between methods of display occurred in only one out of four cases during the initial phase of the retail merchandising study. Sales of greenhouse tomatoes were significantly greater at the one percent level when displayed in bulk single layer plus cellophane bags than in bulk in eight pound baskets in stores one to three during the first three weeks of the experiment, when greenhouse tomato sales were adjusted by total produce sales. This difference did not exist when greenhouse tomato sales were expressed as a percentage of tubed tomato sales. Thus, the results indicate that the methods of display tested had no significant effect upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes relative to the sales of tubed tomatoes.
No significant differences occurred when the results from all six stores were combined.
The effects of various methods of displaying greenhouse tomatoes apparently depends upon the particular retail store where they are used because there were large differences between stores in the sales of greenhouse relative to tubed tomatoes and in the response of sales to given methods of display.
Even though no significant differences occurred in the analysis of all six stores combined, combinations of bulk and packaged to matoes and displays of all packaged tomatoes did not result in sig nificant decreases in sales and in most cases these displays resulted in higher (though not significant) mean sales than the control display of bulk single layer. This indicated that it still might be advan tageous to merchandise greenhouse tomatoes either partly or entirely 3 5 in packages especially if advantages other than direct sales in creases can he realized. It is quite possible that reduced labor costs in the store, larger display's, or other advantages might re sult from merchandising greenhouse tomatoes in packages. The ob jective of this study was only to determine the direct effect of the method of display upon sales, however.
The fact that these results v/ere inconclusive indicated the need for additional tests. Further tests were made in the spring of 1954 and are described in the next section of this paper. 36
Spring Crop Study-1954
Methodology
The second phase of the retail merchandising study was conducted during the period April 26-June 26, 1954. The spring crop of green house tomatoes in Ohio extends from early April to early July. The experimental period was confined to the period May 24 to June 26 in order to insure more uniform tomato quality, supplies and prices.
The purposes of this phase of the study was to make additional tests of the effect of different methods of display upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes and to determine the effect of two methods of
in-store promotion upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes.
1. Experimental design
The latin square experimental design was again used to test the
effect of merchandising practices upon the sales of greenhouse to matoes. A four hy four latin square was used instead of the three by
three design that was used in the fall crop experiment. The basic
difference between these two designs is one additional variable in
the four by four latin square, and the need for one more ro\ir and one
more column. The major advantages in using the four by four rather
than the three by three design are that there are four more degrees
of freedom in the error sum of squares and one additional variable
can be tested. The experimental design, including a four week con
trol period and a one week period for testing a special promotion
method, is shown in Table 16. 37
Table 16. Experimental Design, Including Four Week Control Period and One Week Special Promotion Period, Twelve Retail Food Stores, Arranged in Three Latin Squares, with Treatments*, April 26-June 26, Columbus, Ohio, 1954
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 April 26- Control Period Control Period Control Period May 1
May 3-8 ii ii ii
May 10-15 it it ii
May 17-22 ii ii ii
May 24-29 ii Lettered Sign Salad Bowl Promotion
June 1-5 A B C D At- Bt- Ct- A B C D
June 7-12 BADC Bf- Ai- Dh o\- B A DC
June 14-19 CDA B Cf Df Af- Bj- C D A B
June 21-26 D C B A D|- Cj- Bf A}- D C BA
*A r bulk single layer. B = cellophane bags. C = bulk in baskets. D = bulk single layer plus cellophane bags.
V Ten by twelve inch sign v/ith GREENHOUSE TOMATOES in two inch letters placed above greenhouse tomato disTjlay.
The experiment required nine weeks; four weeks for a control
period, one week for a special promotion in four stores, and four
weeks to test four methods of display and two methods of promotion.
2. Selection of stores
Since three replications of a four by four latin square design
were included in the experiment, it was necessary to have twelve
test stores. Two chain store organizations cooperated in this phase 38 of the study. Eight of the stores belonged to the same food chain that cooperated in the fall crop study. Eour stores from another food chain were selected in order to include stores in all parts of the city. A disadvantage of including stores from two organizations was the fact that merchandising policies of the two chains were dif ferent. These twelve stores were located in all parts of the city in order to include consumers in all income groups. Three of the stores were located in shopping centers.
3. Selection of treatments (methods of display)
Since the results from the fall-crop study of merchandising methods were inconclusive, some of the same treatments were tested again. Bulk single layer was again used as the control display or treatment, and the other experimental displays or treatments were cellophane hags, cellophane hags in combination with hulk single layer, and eight-pound cardboard baskets in which the tomatoes were marketed. The bulk display was limited to one layer in eight of the stores of one chain, but in the four stores belonging to the other food chain, the tomatoes were often piled several tomatoes deep on a single display. This policy made restocking less of a problem but was a. questionable practice so far as tomato cuality was concerned.
The display in cardboard baskets was the same as in the previous ex periment. The baskets were placed side by side on a display island or table and kept filled with tomatoes. In the four stores belonging to one food chain, it was sometimes necessary to pile additional to matoes on top of the baskets so that the display appeared to be a
jumbled, bulk display. This was avoided whenever possible. 39
The display of completely packaged tomatoes consisted of un printed cellophane hags containing from three to five tomatoes. The packaged tomatoes in eight of the stores were supplied by a local to mato grower while those in the other stores were generally packaged in the store. Those packaged by the grower were placed in cellophane bags with a label stapled to the top. This label bore the grower's name and address, the name of the product, "Greenhouse Tomatoes", the count, "Not less than three tomatoes", and had a space for mark ing the price. The size of the toms,toes in the grower packages varied, depending upon the number in the package. The larger the size, the fewer the tomatoes in the package. There were from three to five tomatoes in each package. The grower packaged tomatoes were handled by a local produce wholesaler who delivered them directly to
the stores. The packages were placed in a flat, cardboard carton master container containing eight bags. The weight of the packaged
tomatoes varied from 13 to 15 ounces with the average about 14-
ounces. There were seven pounds of greenhouse tomatoes in each master
shipping carton.
Most of the packaged tomatoes displayed in the four stores of
one food chain were packaged in cellophane bags in the store because
the local grower could not supply their needs. The range in weight
of most of these packages was from 10 to 20 ounces. Some of the
packages in one of the stores weighed up to two pounds because of the
produce manager's desire for larger size units. In most cases the
packages contained from three to five tomatoes. 40
The remaining test treatment consisted 0f tomatoes displayed hulk single layer in combination with cellophane hags. The packaged tomatoes were dispersed around and on top of the hulk tomato display.
4. Methods of promotion
Two methods of in-store promotion were selected for testing.
The first method employed a large metal "salad howl" which measured ahout three feet in diameter, and had a false bottom of hardware cloth. This bowl stood on aluminum legs and was ahout four and one- half feet above floor level at the hack and three and one-half feet high at the front side. The howl was filled with greenhouse to matoes, cucumbers, radishes and leaf lettuce to suggest an attractive
salad. A recirculating water system furnished a spray over the vege
tables at all times. The howl was placed next to the display of
greenhouse tomatoes where a demonstrator distributed samples and en
couraged customers to buy greenhouse tomatoes. The free samples were
slices of greenhouse tomatoes. This promotion scheme was tested in
four stores on Friday and Saturday of the same week. This particular
promotion scheme was selected partly because it was being used by a
greenhouse vegetable producer's organization who made the necessary
eauipment available for experimental purposes.
The other promotion method tested was a simple 10 by 12 inch
sign bearing the printed words "Greenhouse Tomatoes" in two inch
lettering. These signs were placed directly above the greenhouse
tomato display and remained there for the entire experimental period
in four of the stores. This was done in order to determine whether
sales could be significantly increased by identifying the product in 41
Figure 1. Salad Bowl and Demonstrator for Sales Promotion of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Four Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, May 28-29, 1954
this manner. In most ca.ses there were no descriptive signs above the greenhouse tomato displays. All of the test stores posted the unit price above the display, but only five of the twelve test stores identified the product as greenhouse tomatoes. The lettering on the signs in these five stores was less than one inch in height and was penciled on in all cases but one. The results of a, telephone survey in Columbus, Ohio indicated that the majority of consumers who bought fresh toma.toes could not properly identify the kind of tomatoes they 42 actually purchased. Forty percent of those who purchased tubed to matoes identified them as greenhouse tomatoes. In view of this fact, it seemed logical to expect a significant change in the sales of greenhouse tomatoes if they were clearly identified or differentiated from tubed tomatoes in the retail store. A lettered sign was tested because it was an inexpensive and practical method of identifying greenhouse tomatoes in the retail store.
5. Non-test variables
Several important variables which would likely influence the sales of greenhouse tomatoes were controlled through the cooperation of store management insofar as possible. These variables included sizes and locations of displays, and price identification of green house and tubed tomatoes.
The price per pound of greenhouse and per tube of tubed tomatoes were clearly marked on cards above the displays. All packaged green house tomatoes bore the total price of the unit on the packages -as well.
Other non-test variables such as prices, quality, and other factors were considered in the analysis of results.
6 . Control period
One of the major sources of variation in the sales of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes during the fall cron study was that among test
stores. In order to reduce this variation it was considered desirable
3 Unpublished data from a survey conducted by M. E. Cravens and T.W. Leed, Department of Agricultural Economics, The Ohio State University, June, 1953. 43 to adjust for differences among stores prior to the analyses of variance. In order to do this, some measure of the differences among stores with regard to the relative sales of greenhouse and tubed to matoes was necessary. A four week control oeriod previous to the actual controlled experiment was used for this purpose. It was as sumed that the relationships between greenhouse and tubed tomato sales
in each store during the four week control period would remain rel atively constant during the entire experiment. This assumption ap peared valid because store produce managers and oersonnel usually displayed, priced and located greenhouse and tubed tomatoes in a
similar or typical manner over a period of time with the exception of
experimental displays or special promotions on either item.
The retios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales during the four
week control period were used to group the twelve stores into three
latin squares in order to test the effects of methods of display and
promotion upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes.
(a) Procedure
The control period included four weeks, from April 26 to May
22. The stores were visited twice a day and complete records of
receipts, sales, locations and sizes of displays, price and spoilage
loss of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes were kept. At the end of four
weeks ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales were calculated for
each store. These ratios were based upon total sales of greenhouse
3,nd tubed tomatoes during the entire four weeks, excluding sales on
Monday of each week. 4 4
Table 17. Array of Ratios of Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds to Humber of Units of Tubed Tomatoes Sold, Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-May 22, 1954
Ratio of Greenhouse to Rank* Tubed Tomato Sales
1 0.23017
2 0.33929
3 0.43072
4 0.56390
5 0.56452
6 0.82268
7 0.97609
8 1.00296
9 1.08625
10 1.20283
11 1.25171
12 1.28819
*Arrayed from low to high ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales.
Source: Appendix Table 25.
An array of the ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales for
individual stores is shown in Table 17. The difference between stores as indicated by the ratios was considerable.
The twelve stores were then grouped in the experimental design
on the basis of these ratios (Table 18). 45
Table 18. Ratios of Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds to Tubed Tomato Sales in Humber of Units, Arranged in Three Latin Squares, Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-Hay 22, 1954
Ratio of Greenhouse to Store Tubed Tomato Sales Latin S quare One 1 1.00296 2 1.25171 3 0.43072 4 0.82268
Latin Souare Two 5 0.56452 6 1.20283 7 0.97609 8 0.33929
Latin Souare Three 9 0.23017 10 0.56390 11 1.08625 12 1.28819
Source: Table 17.
The store numbers in Table 18 correspond to those in Table 16.
Therefore, stores 1-4, 5-8 and 9-12 each constitute latin squares.
Ho attempt v;as made to group the stores so that the average ratios for each group were equal because the major purpose of obtaining the ratios was to adjust for store differences. The specific grouping of stores into latin squares was immaterial. However, it was necessary to select four stores with enough space and arranged so that the method of promotion involving the "salad bowl" could be tested.
Stores 9-12, where the "salad bowl" promotion was to be tested, were selected on this basis. In addition, it was attempted to determine the differences, if any, of applying this promotion technioue in stores with low ratios and high ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales. Therefore, stores 9-12 included two stores with relatively low and two stores with relatively high ratios (Tahle 18). The other eight stores were arbitrarily assigned to the experimental design, with the only stipulation being that one of the stores in each group have a relatively low ratio, two have a medium ratio, and one have a relatively high ratio of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales.
After the control period was completed and the stores were grouped into the three latin squares comprising the experimental design, one week was set aside for the "salad bowl" promotion in stores nine to twelve (Table 16). This was done for several reasons.
Since the initial effect of this promotion might increase tomato sales considerably, it could seriously interfere with the test of display methods by resulting in a much greater variation between time periods (weeks). In order to avoid this, the "salad bowl" nro- motion was tested before the four week experiment of display methods.
By so doing, the residual or carry-over effects of this promotion could be determined by analyzing sales during the experimental oeriod.
The week immediately following the control period was a. holiday week end since Memorial Day was celebrated on Monday, June 1. This was another reason for not initiating an experiment during that week.
Hov/ever, the "salad bowl" promotion was conducted on Friday and
Saturday with the consent of the managers and supervisors of the four stores involved. 47
Beginning on Tuesday of the following week, a four-week experi mental period was begun. This period extended from June 2 through
June 26. During this time, four methods of displaying greenhouse tornadoes and another method of promotion were tested in all twelve retail stores. This v/as done by means of the three, four by four latin souares previously described (Table 16).
After the completion of the experimental period, the control period data were used to adjust for store, differences in the relative sales of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes. In order to do this, two indexes were computed from the control neriod sales data. (Table 19) .
Table 19. Index of Greenhouse Tomato Seles (in Pounds), and Index of Ratios of Greenhouse Tomato Sales to Tubed Tomato Sales (in Number of Tubes), Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-Hay 22, 1954 (Store Number 1-100)
Index Ratio of Greenhouse to Greenhouse Tomato Store Tubed Tomato Sales Sales in Pounds (Percent) 1 100.00 100.00 2 124.80 119.39 3 42.94 28 .02 4 82.03 82.05 5 56.29 45.76 6 119.93 291.45 7 97.32 56.15 8 33.83 20.37 9 22.95 37.88 10 56 .22 67.81 11 108 .30 301.59 12 128.44- 612.28
Source: Appendix Table 22. 48
These indexes were used to adjust the data obtained during the ex perimental period before analyzing the variance in greenhouse tomato sales in pounds and in greenhouse relative to tubed tomato sales.
Greenhouse tomato sales in pounds and the ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales during each week of the experimental period were adjusted by these indexes by dividing sales in pounds and sales ratios in each store by the respective index (Appendix Tables 24 and
26) .
Greenhouse tomato sales were then analyzed for variance to de termine whether methods of display significantly affected greenhouse tomato sales. Actual greenhouse tomato sales in pounds were analyzed first.
The second analysis of variance involved greenhouse tomato sales in pounds adjusted by the four week control period sales index to re duce the differences in greenhouse tomato sales between stores.
In the first W o analyses of variance total weekly sales of greenhouse tomatoes were used even though the intended method of dis play was not followed during the entire week in some stores.
The third analysis of variance tested the adjusted ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales. This made possible the study of the effects of the methods of display upon the sales of greenhouse relative to the sales of tubed tomatoes. Only the sales of green house and tubed tomatoes when an adequate selection of both were available were used in calculating these ratios.
The sales data from stores nine to twelve (latin souare three) were not used in the analyses of variance because the special "salad 49
■bowl” promotion the week before the experimental period had an unlike residual effect upon the sales in these four stores during the four week experimental period. This meant that store differences were not minimized by the latin square design in these four stores, and an accurate estimate of the effects of methods of display upon sales could not be determined. Also, in one of the stores the cellophane package method of display was not adequately tested because of the produce manager's desire to include bulk tomatoes in the display.
Stores nine to twelve were used only to measure the effects of the
"salad bowl” promotion upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes.
Analysis and Results
1. Methods of display
The analyses of variance of actual greenhouse tomato sales in
stores one through eight are shown in Appendix Tables 27 - 29. There
were no significant differences at the five percent level due to
methods of display in either group of four stores or in the eight
stores combined. In each case the difference in sales between
stores was significant at the one percent level. This was expected
because of the large differences in greenhouse tomato sales among
stores during the control period (Appendix Table 22).
Actual greenhouse tomato mean sales, by method of display, for
the tv/o groups of stores end for the two groups combined are shown
in Table 20. There was relatively little difference among the four
methods of display in terms of greenhouse tomato sales. The highest
rate of sales of greenhouse tomatoes was associated with the bulk 50 single layer plus cellophane "bags method of display- The lowest rate of sales was obtained when the greenhouse tomatoes were displayed in hulk single layer.
The analyses of variance for greenhouse tomato sales adjusted by the control period sales index are shown in Appendix Tables 30-32.
Again there were no significant differences at the five percent level
in greenhouse tomato sales among treatments. Differences in sales
among stores were significant at the one percent level in stores one
to four, but were not significant in stores five to eight. In the
eight stores combined, differences in sales among stores were signif
icant at the one percent level. In all cases, however, the differ
ences in sales among stores were less than in the analyses of vari
ance of unadjusted greenhouse tomato sales (Appendix Tables 27-29).
This indicates that the adjustment based upon the control period in
dex reduced the differences among stores.
Adjusted greenhouse tomato mean sales, by method of display, are
shown in Table 21. There was relatively little difference in sales
among treatments in the eight stores combined and the differences
were not significant in any of the cases. The highest rate of sales
in all eight stores was obtained when the tomatoes were displayed in
bulk single layer plus cellophane bags. The same was true in the
analysis of unadjusted greenhouse tomato sales (Table 20). The lowest
rate of sales was associated with the display of tomatoes packaged in
cellophane bags. 51
Table 20, Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales Per Store, in Pounds, and Index of Average Sales*, by Method of Display, Two Store Groups, Bight Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-25, 1954
Stores 1-4 5-8 1-8 Method of Disnlay Average Index Average Index Average Index
Bulk single layer** 430.75 100.00 267.00 100.00 348.88 100.00
Cellophane bags f- 410.50 95.30 321.25 120.32 365.88 104.87
Bulk in baskets}- f 351.00 81.49 383.50 143.63 367.25 105.27
Bulk plus cellophane bags# 410.00 95.18 366.25 137.17 388.12 111.25
* Bulk single layer - 100. ** No greenhouse tomatoes were available on one day in Store 6 , and Store 2 sold out of greenhouse tomatoes on Saturday.
{" In Stores 1, 2, and 3, 331 pounds of greenhouse tomatoes or five percent of total sales were in bulk.
Store 5 sold out of greenhouse tomatoes on Saturday.
# There were no packaged tomatoes available during part of the week in Stores 1 and 6 .
Source: Appendix Tables 27-29.
In the third test there were no significant differences in the
ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales due to method of display
of greenhouse tomatoes. The analyses of variance of the adjusted
ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales in stores one to eight are
shown in Appendix Tables 33 and 34. The largest component of variance
was attributed to store differences in all cases. This difference was
significant at the five percent level in stores one to four and in
the eight stores combined. 52
Table 21. Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales Per Store, in Pounds, Adjusted by Control Period Index*,and Index of Average Sales**, by Method of Display, Tv;o Store Groups, Bight Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954
Stores 1-4 5-8 1-8 Method of Display Average Index Average Index Average Index
Bulk single layerf 553.75 100.00 341.50 100.00 447.62 100.00
Cellophane bagsff 476.00 85.96 352.00 103.07 414.00 92.49
Bulk in baskets# 429.50 77.56 413.25 121.01 421.38 94.14
Bulk plus cello phane bags## 512.50 92.55 467.75 136.97 490.12 109.49
* Based upon sales during April 26-May 22. Store 1 = 100.
**Bulk single layer -, 100.
{- No greenhouse tomatoes were available on one day in Store 6 and Store 2 sold out of greenhouse tomatoes on Saturday.
{•{"In Stores 1, 2, and 3, 331 pounds of greenhouse tomatoes or four percent of total sales were in bulk. In Stores 6 and 7, 613 pounds of greenhouse tomatoes or ten percent of total sales in bulk.
# Store 5 sold out of greenhouse tomatoes on Saturday.
##There were no packaged tomatoes available during part of the week in Stores 1 and 6 .
Source: Appendix Tables 30-32.
The mean ratios and ratio index, by method of display, for the
two groups of stores and eight stores combined are shown in Table 22.
The results were the same as those obtained in the analysis of ad
justed greenhouse tomato sales in pounds with regard to the relation
ships between rate of sale and method of display (Table 21). Green
house and tubed tomato sales changed in direct proportion to each 53 other during the experimental period and not in response to the method of greenhouse tomato display.
The three analyses of variance indicated that the methods of display tested did not have a significant effect upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes in pounds or upon the sales of greenhouse rel
ative to the sales of tubed tomatoes.
Table 22. Average Ratios of Greenhouse to Tubed Tomato Sales Per Store, and Index of Average Ratios*, Adjusted by Control Period Index**, Two Store Groups, Eight Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954
Store 1-4 5-8 1-8 Method of Display Average Index Average Index Average Index
Bulk single layer 142.48 100.00 105.17 100.00 123.82 100.00
Cellophane bags 110.33 77.44 108.17 102.85 109.25 88.23
Bulk in baskets 91.58 64.28 143.28 136.24 117.43 94.84
Bulk plus cello phane bags 123.17 86.45 148.71 141.40 135.94 109.79
* Bulk single layer - 100.
** Based upon sales during April 26-May 22. Store 1 = 100.
Source: Appendix Table 16.
a. Non-test variables
The experimental error in the analyses of variance was due to an
unknown number of factors which affect the sales of greenhouse to
matoes. The factors which were assumed to have the greatest effect
upon greenhouse tomato sales were controlled by the experimental 54 design so that their effects could he measured in the analysis. These factors were time, stores and treatments. Since the amount of var iance in greenhouse tomato sales due to these factors -was- determined, the residual variance, or error, was due to unknown factors or those that were not included in the experimental design. It would he in formative to determine all of the factors that affect greenhouse to mato sales and the degree of their effects, hut this study was con cerned primarily with determining the effect of method of display upon sales. However, it was possible that one or more non-test var iables might have affected greenhouse tomato sales to a significantly different degree between treatments. Thus, one or more non-test var
iables might have changed the relationships between treatments, as measured by sales.
An a.ttempt was mp.de to hold the non-test variables constant.
This was discussed in the methodology pertaining to both the fall and
spring crop studies. However, there were certain factors that could
not be held constant that would be expected to have an important re lationship to the sales of greenhouse tomatoes. These factors were prices of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes, quality and size of display
of greenhouse tomatoes.
(l) Price
As mentioned previously, the latin square experimental design
was selected because it minimizes time, store and price differences
when prices are the same In all stores during each week. In the fall
crop experiment, prices were the same in all stores during each week
so that the effects of prices upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes were included in the variance due to time or row' differences.
The same was true for the spring crop experiment except for differences in prices between stores in the two food chain organi zations. There were also minor price differences which intermittently occurred between stores in the same chain due to delays in posting the correct prices and various other reasons. However, most of the differences in greenhouse tomato sales due to changes in prices were included in the variance due to time or row differences.
If greenhouse tomato prices were significantly different among treatments it is possible that the true differences betv/.een treatments might not have been determined in the analyses of variance. In order to examine that possibility, Table 23 wras constructed. The relation ships between treatments were the same whether sales were measured in pounds or in dollars (Table 23). This indicated that there were no significant differences among treatments with respect to green house tomato prices during the experimental period.
It v/as possible that tubed tomato prices were related to the sales of greenhouse tomatoes to the extent they might have had an un like effect upon sales among treatments. Relationships between tubed and greenhouse tomato sales were taken into account by expressing greenhouse tomato sales as ratios of tubed tomato sales. The effects
of the prices of tubed tomatoes were included in the ratios insofar
as they were reflected in tubed.tomato sales. The latin square ex perimental design also minimized the effect of the variation in tubed
tomato prices between treatments since an eaual number of each treat
ment was tested each week. 56
Table 23. Index of Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds and in Dollars, by Method of Display*, Two Groups of Stores, Eight Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954
Store 1-4 5-8 1-8 Method of Display Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars
Bulk single layer 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Cellophane bags 95.30 88.39 120.32 132.77 104.87 104.67
Bulk in baskets 81.49 81.42 143.63 155.46 105.27 108.58
Bulk plus cello phane bags 95.18 97.79 137.17 153.87 111.25 118.36
* Bull: single layer -^100.
Source: Table 20 and Appendix Tables 22 and 36.
(2) Quality
Quality is a factor that influences the sales of most products.
Variations in quality are especially important in affecting the rate
of sale of perishable products such as fresh tomatoes. Only U. S.
Number One Medium grade tomatoes were used in this experiment, but
there were relatively large variations in quality, as indicated by
general appearance and length of shelf life of the tomatoes. The to
matoes were of better appearance during the first two weeks of the
experiment thaJi during the last two weeks. This variation in quality
probably had some effect upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes, but
presumably affected sales among treatments alike and were mostly in
cluded in variance due to time. (3) Size of display
It was not possible to maintain the same amount of display space for greenhouse tomatoes during each of the four weeks of the experi mental period. Since there is evidence for other food products that changes in sizes of display have an effect upon sales, it was probable that the same was true for greenhouse tomatoes. If so, then changes in the amount of display space could have influenced the relation ships among treatments. There was considerable variation among treatments with regard to total space in the displays (Table 24).
In the eight stores combined, there was considerably less total space for the bulk in baskets method of display than for the other three types of display. The amount of display space for the bulk single layer method of display in stores one to four v/as cmite a bit greater than for the other treatments. In stores five to eight, the bulk in baskets method of display received considerably less display space than the other treatments. Although there was considerably less
space devoted to the greenhouse tomato display of bulk in baskets in the eight experimental stores, there v/ere actually as many or more pounds of tomatoes on display as in the other types of displays. This v/as true because there v/ere several layers of tomatoes in each of the baskets while each of the other types of display usually consisted of
only one layer of tomatoes. No attempt v/as made to determine the
relationships between the size of displays and amount of tomatoes in
the displays and the sales of greenhouse tomatoes. If such effects were not balanced out by the experimental design, they were presumably
included in the component of variance due to error. 58
Table 24. Total Humber of Square Feet In Greenhouse Tomato Displays, by Method of Display, Two Groups of Stores, Eight Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954
Store Method of Disolay 1-4 5-8 1-8 (Souare Feet)
Bulk single layer 71.50 37.00 108.50
Cellophane bags 52.00 34.00 86.00
Bulk in baskets 45.50 24.00 69.50
Bulk plus cellophane bags 49.50 39.00 88.50
Source: Appendix Table 38.
2. Promotion
One of the objectives of this study was to determine the effects of two methods of point-of-sale promotion upon the sales of green house tomatoes over a period of several weeks. The methods of pro motion tested were, (l) lettered signs above the greenhouse tomato display bearing the words "Greenhouse Tomatoes", and, (2) a large
"salad bowl" accompanied by a woman demonstrator who distributed free sample slices of greenhouse tomatoes. These methods were fully described on pages 40-42.
These methods of promotion were included in the experimental design for testing the effects of methods of display upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes (Table 16). Store group one (stores 1-4) was the control group where no promotion was tested. Store grour> two
(stores 5-8) was used to test the effects of a lettered sign, and
store group three (stores 9-12) was used to test the effects of the 59
11 salad 'bowl11 promotion.
Since each store group was balanced with respect to time periods
and methods of display by the experimental design, the effects of price and quality and other non-test variables were minimized between groups. The effects of promotion methods were indicated by differences
in greenhouse tomato sales in pounds and relative to tubed tomato
sales between store groups. Sales in each group of stores during the
promotion period were compared with sales during the control period.
This method of comparison was used to eliminate differences in green
house and tubed tomato sales between stores. The relative differ
ences between spies in each store group during the experimental per
iod, based upon sales during the control period, were assumed to be
due to promotion. It was assumed that the index of sales for store
groups two and three would not be significantly greater than the in
dex of sales in store group one unless the promotion methods had a
significant effect upon sales in store groups two or three. The in
dexes were based upon average sales during the control period. The
same was assumed for the average ratios of greenhouse to tubed to
mato sales.
The average sales and sales indexes of greenhouse tomatoes for
the three groups of four stores during the four week control period
and the following five weeks are shown in Table 25. The sales indexes
indicated that, relative to sales during the control period, average
sales for the following five weeks were significantly lower in
the stores where the lettered signs were used, than in the control 60
Table 25. Average Greenhouse Tomato Sales Per Store, in Pounds, and Index of Average Sales Per Stored, Three Groups of Pour Stores, Twelve Retail Pood Stores, April 26-June 26, 1954
Method of Promotion Store Groun None Signs Salad Bov/1 Period Average Index Average Index Average Index
April 26-May 22 221 100.0 277 100.0 683 100.0
Kay 24-29I+ 512 231.7 505 182.3** 2089 305.9*
June 1-5 423 191.4 336 121.3* 1746 255.6*
June 7-12 477 215.8 289 104.3* 1541 225.6
June 14-19 344 155.7 329 118.8 1000 146.4
June 21-26 358 162.0 384 138.6 786 115.1**
Average 423 191.4 369* 133.2* 1432 209.7
* Significant at the one percent level compared with non-promotion groups. ** Significant at the five percent level compared with non- promotion groups. Y Average weekly sales during April 26-May 22 - 100.
"m * Salad howl promotion was conducted in stores 9-12.
Source: Appendix Table 22. 61
Table 26. Average Ratios* of Greenhouse to Tubed. Tomato Sales Per Store, and Index of Average Ratios Per Store**, Three Groups of Pour Stores, Twelve Retail Pood Stores, April 26-June 26, 1954
Method of Promotion Store Groun None Signs Salad Bowl Period Average Index Average Index Average Index
April 26-May 22 0.915 100.0 0.938 100.0 0.982 100.0
May 24-291- 1.786 195.2 1.520 162.0 3.358 342.0
June 1-5 1.233 134.8 1.088 116.0 2.378 242.2-
June 7-12 1.299 142.0 0.741 79.0 2.801 285.2
June 14-19 0.724 79.1 1.104 117.7 0.839 85.4
June 21-26 0.838 91.6 1.037 110.6 0.804 81.9
Average 1.113 121.6 1.084 115.6 1.757 178.9
♦Based upon total sales.
♦♦Average weekly ratios during April 25-May 22 - 100.
fSalad bowl promotion was conducted in stores 9-12.
Source: Appendix Table 25. stores. There was no significant difference "between the average sales for the five experimental weeks in the stores where the 11 salad bowl" promotion v/as tested and those where no promotion was used.
During the week of the "salad howl" promotion and the following week, the sales index for stores where the salad howl was used was signif icantly greater than in the control stores. Tahle 27 compares the sales indexes for the individual stores in the "salad howl" promotion group with the sales index for the control group. This comparison is also shown graphically in Chart 3. These data show that there was considerable difference between weeks and stores. Relative to the control period, sales were significantly greater at the one percent level in stores 9, 10 and 11 than in the control stores during the week of the special promotion, May 24-29. During the first week after the special promotion, the sales indexes were significantly greater in stores nine and eleven a.nd significantly lower in store 10 than in the control group of stores. During the next three weeks, the sales index in store nine was significrntly greater than in the con trol stores. For the entire period, the index of greenhouse tomato sales was significantly greater, at the one percent level, in store nine than in the control stores. The sales index in store 11 was significantly higher, at the five percent level, than in the control stores for the five week period.
Greenhouse tomato sales relative to tubed tomato sales for the control period and the following five weeks are shown in Table 26.
For the five week period as a whole, there was little difference in the ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales between the control 63
Table 27. Index of Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds}-, Control Group of Stores and Pour Special Promotion Stores, Eight Retail Food Stores, May 24-June 26, 1954
Method of Promotion and Stores None Salad Bowl Week 1-4 9 10 11 12
May 24-29ff 231.7 744.6* 368.2* 389.0* 330.6
June 1-5 191.4 480.0* 127.1* 343.0* 212.6
June 7-12 215.8 319.0* 147.0* 215.3 233.4
June 14-19 155.7 321.5* 173.0 174.4 118.8
June 21-26 162.0 309.2* 129.3 96 .5* 110.6**
Average 191.4 435.2* 188.7 243.6** 181.2
* Significant at the one percent level compared with non promotion group.
** Significant at the five percent level compared with non promotion group.
}- Average weekly sales during April 26-Kay 22 z 100.
H- Salad howl promotion was conducted in stores 9-12.
Source: Appendix Table 22. C'narfc 3. Index of Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds, Twelve Retail Food Stores, April 26-June 26, 195k
(Average weekly sales during April 26-May 22“100) Index 750
700
600
Store 9
koo —
\ Store 10 Store 11
20C “/ Stores 1-k
Store l2* <=*
April 26- May 2k-2 9 June 1-5 June 7-12 June lk-19 June 21- M * y 22 Week
Source: Table 27 stores and stores where the lettered signs were used. There was considerable difference in the ratios of greenhouse to tuhed tomato sales between the control stores and the 11 salad bowl" promotion stores
The ratios were much higher in the "salad bowl" promotion stores, especially during May 24-39, the week the "salad bowl" nromotion was conducted. Table 28 shows the index of the ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales for the control stores and for each of the stores
in the special nromotion group (9-12). The index of greenhouse to mato sales relative to tubed tomato sales was much greater in store
nine than in the control stores during each week and for the entire period. The ratio index during the week of the special promotion
(May 24-29), was considerably greater in stores 10 and 11 than in the
control stores. For the entire period, May 24-June 26, greenhouse
tomato sales relative to tubed tomato sales increased more in each
of the four special promotion stores than in the control group of
stores. The greatest increase in greenhouse relative to tubed to
mato sales was in stores nine and eleven, the two stores where the
indexes of greenhouse tomato sales in nomads were significantly
greater than in the control stores (Table 27). 66
Table 28. Index of Ratios-of Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, to Tubed Tomato Sales, in Humber of Units*, Control Group of Stores and Pour Special Promotion Stores, April 26-June 26, 1954
Method of Promotion and Stores Hone Salad Bowl Week 1-4 9 10 11 12
May 24-29** 195.2 640.9 387.0 691.8 157.4
June 1-5 134.8 477.4 89.2 395.2 180.2
June 7-12 142.0 257.4 133.5 378.2 179.7
June 14-19 79.1 260.0 131.0 79.7 75.9
June 21-26 91.6 248.7 47.9 74.9 77.0
Average 121. o 369.6 153.9 239.0 144.5
* Average weekly ratio during April 26-May 22 - 100.
** Salad bov/1 promotion was conducted in stores 9-12.
Source: Appendix Table 25. 67
a- Size of display
A major feature of the salad howl promotion was a larger than normal display of greenhouse tomatoes in the stores involved. This factor alone would he expected to have some effect upon the sales of greenhouse tomatoes during the promotion and afterwards if displays continued to he larger than previously.
Tahle 29 shows the changes in size of greenhouse tomato dis plays and their size relative to tuhed tomato displays during the week of promotion and the four experimental weeks. During the week of the special salad howl promotion, May 24-29, the average size of the greenhouse tomato displays was larger than the previous week in each store group. It was double that of the previous week in stores
9-12, sixty percent larger in stores 1-4 and about the same in stores
5-8. During the next four weeks the greenhouse tomato displays re mained larger, on the average, than during the week preceeding the
special promotion. The displays in stores 9-12 were larger, relative
to the base week, than in the other two store groups. However, this was mostly due to the tremendous increase in display size in store
nine.
Tahle 29 shows the index of the average size of greenhouse to
mato displays relative to the average size of tuhed tomato displays.
This ratio increased during the week of special promotion relative
to the nrevious week in each store group. The amount of increase was
considerably greater in stores nine to twelve than in the other eight
stores. Store nine had the grea.test amount of increase and the index
remained higher during every week of the experimental period than in Table 29. Index* of Average Number of Souare Feet in Greenhouse Tomato Displays and Ratios of the Average Number of Square Feet in Greenhouse Tomato Displays to Tubed Tomato Displays, Twelve Retail Food Stores, May 17-June 26, 1954
Store 1-4 5-8 9 10 Week Greenhouse Ratio Greenhouse Ratio Greenhouse Ratio Greenhouse Ratic
May 17-22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
May 24-29** 160 158 102 117 436 333 145 243
June 1-6 120 150 142 162 414 438 132 191
June 7-12 146 218 85 118 229 241 164 217
June 14-19 124 140 101 140 300 490 155 274
June 21-26 130 141 122 119 243 290 86 61 Table 29. (Continued)
Store 11 12 9-12 Week Greenhouse Ratio Greenhouse Ratio Greenhouse Ratio
May 17-22 100 100 100 100 100 100
May 24—29** 134 291 90 198 201 244
June 1-6 174 282 102 125 206 209
June 7-12 148 190 83 166 156 191
June 14-19 127 162 51 118 158 201
June 21-26 71 97 47 83 112 106
* May 17-22 - 100.
** Week of special promotion.
Source: Appendix Table 38. 70 any other store.
Hone of the stores, including those in the special promotion group, were encouraged to maintain larger than usual greenhouse to mato displays after the week of promotion. However, all of the special promotion stores except store numher twelve, maintained larger displays throughout the following four weeks. The results of the special promotion encouraged the produce managers in these stores to d a c e more emphasis on the merchandising of greenhouse tomatoes than before the oromotion. Store nine, for example, had the lowest ratio of greenhouse to tuhed tomatoes of the twelve stores and maintained a relatively small display of greenhouse tomatoes previous to the pro motion. The sales increase during and after the special promotion encouraged the produce manager in this store to display more green house tomatoes than previously. The same could have been true to some extent for stores ten and eleven. Store twelve, on the other hand, had one of the highest ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomatoes during the control period and had a relatively large display of greenhouse tomatoes. Sales of greenhouse tomatoes increased less in this store than in the other three in the group during the special promotion.
Thus, there was less incentive to maintain a larger than usual green house tomato display.
The fact that all twelve stores maintained larger than normal greenhouse tomato displays during and after the weeks of the special promotion was probably due to a. decline in price to a large extent.
The price of greenhouse tomatoes declined from 49 to 39 cents per pound in eight of the stores during May 24-29, the special promotion 71 week. In the promotion stores, the price of greenhouse tomatoes re mained the same in two and declined from 49 to 39 cents in the other two.
The relatively larger increase in size of greenhouse tomato dis plays in the promotion than in the non-promotion stores was undoubted
ly partly responsible for the significant increase in greenhouse to
mato sales during the week of promotion and some of the following four
weeks. Size of display, however, is part of this promotion techniaue,
and the increased size of displays during the weeks following the
promotion was partly an effect of the promotion and a major factor in
increased sales over a period of weeks. Thus, size of display and
the salad bowl promotion technioue were analyzed as one and the same
thing.
b. Cost of "salad bowl" promotion
The costs of conducting the "salad bowl" promotion are pre
sented in Table 30. It represents an approximation of the average
cost per store and the total cost of the two-day promotion. This
cost would vary depending upon the number of stores, the distance
traveled and other factors, and the data shown in Table 30 applies
only to the experimental situation. 72
Table 30. Estimated Cost of Conducting Salad Bowl Promotion in Pour Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, May 28-29, 1954
Average Cost Cost for Pour Item Per Store Stores
Salad Bowl Depreciation and maintenance* 82.00 $8.00
Transportation and Handling** Labor 7.50 30.00 Transportation expense 8.25 33.00
Supplies I- 11.75 47.00
Labor in Stores ff 20.00 80.00
Total # $49 .50 $198.00
* Assuming full depreciation in 10 years and average use of 15 weeks per year. ** Includes: a 280 mile trip for one man to obtain and return bowl, erecting and taking down in stores, travel between stores, and transporting women demonstrators. Wage rate was 81.00 per hour and transportation rate was seven cents per mile.
f Includes free slices of tomatoes distributed in stores, vege tables used in salad bowl, toothpicks, paper plates, etc..
{■f Pour women who spent 10 hours a day for two days in the stores at a rate of 81.00 per hour. # Does not include wages of researchers who would not ordinarily be reauired to conduct this oromotion.
c. Conclusions
These data indicated that lettered signs placed above the dis plays of greenhouse tomatoes which identified the product did not
have a significant effect upon sales. Compared with the control
stores, greenhouse tomato sales in pounds and relative to tubed to mato sales in the stores where lettered signs v/ere tested, increased 73 less during the five weeks after the control period. Evidently the signs did not identify the product to the extent that customers were more willing to buy them.
A special saled bowl promotion in four stores during Friday and
Saturday of one week increased greenhouse tomato sales in three of the four test stores compared v/ith sales in the control stores. In one store sales were increased significantly during the week of promotion, each of the ensuing four weeks, and for the entire neriod as a whole. Sales were increased significantly only during the week of promotion in another store while significant increases occurred during the week of promotion, the following week and for the five weeks as a whole in another store.
In the two stores where the salad bowl promotion resulted in a significant increase in greenhouse tomato sales during the experi mental period as a whole, the ratios of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales also increased considerably more than in the control stores or in the other two special promotion stores. In fact, there was a direct relationship between the index of greenhouse tomato sales in pounds and the index of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales in the four
special promotion stores. This indicated that a significant increase
in greenhouse tomato sales due to promotion was accompanied by a proportiona.te increa.se in the sales of greenhouse tomatoes relative
to the sales of tubed tomatoes.
The greatest increase in greenhouse tomato sales during the promotion and for each of the following four weeks occurred in the
store that had the lowest ratio of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales 74 during the four weeks prior to the promotion. Sales of greenhouse
tomatoes in this store during the four weeks after the salad howl promotion averaged more than four times the sales during the control
period. Sales were three times the control period sales during the
last week of the study indicating that the effects of the special
promotion were likely to continue indefinitely in that store. The
store that had the highest ratio of greenhouse to tuhed tomato sales
during the previous four weeks was the only store where the "salad
howl" apparently did not result in a significant increase in green
house tomato sales, at least during the week of promotion.
It appears that the greatest benefits to growers would he
achieved by conducting this type of promotion in stores that do a
relatively weak job of merchandising greenhouse tomatoes. It was
observed that the store which did the weakest job of merchandising
greenhouse tomatoes and had the greatest sales increase due to pro
motion placed little emphasis on merchandising greenhouse tomatoes
prior to the promotion. The display was very small and not carefully
policed in order to keep it attractive and well filled. The tremen
dous sales increase as a re stilt of the promotion apparently convinced
the produce manager in the store that it would be worthwhile to give
more attention and display space to the product. He remarked that he
apparently was not giving enough display space to greenhouse tomatoes
and thereafter ma.intained s much larger display.
The total benefits of the salad bowl promotion to greenhouse to
mato growers depends upon the increase in price per basket of to
matoes sold. This will depend upon the increase in demand for green- 75 house tomatoes as a result of the promotion and upon the nature of the demand. The increase in sales that was obtained as a result of the promotion presumably was due to consumers buying more greenhouse tomatoes and consumers buying greenhouse tomatoes who would otherwise have purchased tubed tomatoes or no tomatoes. The salad bov/1 pro motion appears to have possibilities for increasing the demand for greenhouse tomatoes to the extent that total returns to grov/ers would increase.
3. Spoilage loss
Table 31. Greenhouse Tomato Spoilage Loss (in Pounds) as a Percentage of Total Sales (in Pounds), Bight Retail Food Stores, April 26-June 26, 1954
Week Store 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average
4 2.83 6.54 4.03 1.27 0.36 1.68 5.19 6.53 6.46 3.59 7 0.14 2.08 2.21 2.63 3.27 4.02 1.19 5.52 2.52 2.57 8 2.90 1.35 3.88 - 0.29 2.70 7.53 1.92 3.94 2.69 10 - 4.64 8.38 1.19 0.15 4.11 3.59 3.20 4.44 2.62
2 0.07 0.95 1.64 0.86 0.15 2.72 3.97 5.36 3.76 2.04 3 3.47 0.89 1.80 - 2.00 1.37 3.05 3.59 3.37 2.42 5 1.91 0.53 0.87 - 2.55 0.29 2.39 1.27 1.85 1.37 9 2.64 1.47 3.97 0.23 4.49 3.38 0.28 4.21 3.92 3.25
Source: Appendix Table 39.
An attempt was ma.de to determine the amount of spoilage of green
house and tubed tomatoes in the twelve test stores during the nine
weeks of the study. Store clerks v/ere asked to keep all spoiled to
matoes until one of the enumerators could record their weight. If
this was not possible, they were requested to make a note of the 76 amount disposed of and report it to the enumerator daily.
Since each store was visited at lea.st once a day, most of the spoilage loss was detected when the enumerator policed the displays.
However, it was difficult to obtain complete information inmost of the stores because the clerks forgot to record the amount of loss and could not recall it for the enumerator. In some cases several people worked in the produce department and the person who policed the to mato displays was off duty when the enumerator arrived.
Stores one, six, eleven and twelve belonged to one corporate chain, and it was not possible to obtain complete spoilage loss records for these stores. The loss that was recorded for them is shown in Appendix Tables 39 and 40.
In the remaining eight stores more complete records were obtained.
Eecords v/ere more complete in some of these stores than in others for reasons previously given. Tables 31 and 32 show the amount of
spoilage of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes as a oercentage of sales in
eight stores. The stores v/ere divided into two groups of four. The
first group includes stores four, seven, eight and ten, where spoilage
loss records were knov/n to be more complete. Records in the other
four stores were probably not as complete.
The spoilage loss data indicate considerable differences among
stores. For the nine weeks as a whole, the average loss of green
house tomatoes as a percentage of sales in the first group of four
stores was 2.93 percent. For tubed tomatoes it was 5.78 percent.
These figures are conservative since some spoilage was not recorded,
especially in stores eight and ten. It is likely that the loss Table 32. Tubed Tomato Spoilage Lobs (in Units) as a Percentage of Total Sales (in Units), Bight 3etail Food Stores, April 26-June 26, 1954
Week Store 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average
4 12.10 13.86 12.19 6.85 7.12 o. 3o 3.34 0.68 3.07 6.15
7 0.53 7.84 7.27 8.35 16.70 4.56 6 .62 7.03 11.58 7.91
S 4.23 7.41 7.60 6.86 9.64 2.79 5.15 1.27 1.34 4.78
10 3.59 1.02 1.50 7.40 14.80 7.21 3.86 2.30 2.65 4.91
2 0.50 8.59 8.72 4.99 1.96 6.73 5.06 0.77 6.79 4.65
3 5.64 5.93 2.94 1.39 26.54 1.86 2.42 2.11 2.07 5.38
5 0.98 2.67 5.66 6.79 10.78 1.91 6.52 1.40 1.00 3.95
9 1.64 3.50 2.87 3.95 0.69 3.60 4.29 0.33 0.78 2.33
Source: Appendix Table 40. 78 figures for stores four and seven are complete, since the produce department personnel made a special effort to save all spoiled to matoes until recorded by an enumerator.
It was a conservative estimate that tuhed tomato spoilage loss was somewhat greater than six percent of sales while greenhouse to mato spoilage was somewhat greater than three percent of sales.
The data are insufficient to determine the effect of handling and displaying uractices upon the amount of spoilage loss. It was observed that clerks in store number seven, which had the highest loss of tubed tomatoes, handled and displayed both tubed and green house tomatoes more carefully than in other stores. Therefore, it
is likely that tubed tomato spoilage was much higher in the other
stores than the amount shown. Most clerks seemed hesitant to reveal
the amount of spoilage loss to the enumerators.
The amount of loss of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes relative to
sales was lower during this part of the study than in the fall-crop
study. In this study the loss of greenhouse tomatoes was slightly more than five percent of sales and tubed loss was nearly twelve per
cent of sales in those stores where records were known to be nearly
complete (Table 15) .
The spoilage of both greenhouse a,nd tubed tomatoes and the fact
that spoilage of tubed tomatoes was twice that of greenhouse tomatoes
warrants consideration by those involved in marketing these products.
It is especially important that food retailers determine the relative
amount of spoilage of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes in the store so
that markup can be adjusted accordingly. Otherwise, the spoilage 79 might he sufficient to result in a net loss to the retail tomato operation. When considerable spoilage occurred, as in the case of tuhed tomatoes, a substantial amount of labor was required to police displays, break the containers and remove the spoiled tomatoes and repackage the remaining tomatoes. The salable tubed tomatoes were often placed in the greenhouse display after they were removed from the tubes.
Greenhouse tomatoes usually arrived at the store in good con dition. During certain weeks, however, greenhouse tomatoes did not hold up well in the store, regardless of how well they were handled.
In these cases, over-ordering was often responsible for relatively high spoilage loss. It was observed that tubed tomatoes were often
of poor quality upon arrival at the store, and spoilage was very great when they were displayed. On two occasions more than 100 tubes were returned to the warehouse because they were unsalable when de
livered to the store. This indicated that the tomatoes were of in
ferior quality when packaged, or were not handled properly somewhere
between the time they were packaged and delivered to the store.
Some of the spoilage that occurred during the study could have
been avoided by uroper handling and displaying methods. Some produce
department managers continued to refrigerate both greenhouse and
tubed tomatoes during the spring study before placing them on display.
They did this in spite of the fact that the tomatoes were not fully
ripe. Display practices in the store were not always sound from the
standpoint of quality maintenance. Both tubed and greenhouse to
matoes were sometimes displayed in more than one layer so that the 80
■bottom layer was subject to weight or pressure. In view of the
amount of loss, it would be profitable to place more time and effort
towards improved handling and displaying methods in order to reduce
spoilage in the store.
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Method of display
A six week controlled experiment in six retail food stores during
November 2 to December 19, 1953 indicated that there were no signif
icant differences in the sales of greenhouse tomatoes in pounds, or
relative to the sales of tubed tomatoes due to any of five methods of
display. The five methods tested were bulk single layer, bulk in
eight pound baskets, cellophane bags, polyethylene bags and a combi
nation of bulk single layer and cellophane bags. The greatest rate
of sales resulted when they v/ere displayed in a combination of bulk
single layer and cellophane bags.
A four week controlled experiment in eight retail food stores
during June 1-26, 1954 indicated that there v/ere no significant dif
ferences in the sales of greenhouse tomatoes in pounds, or relative
to the sales of tubed tomatoes due to any of four methods of display.
The methods of display tested v/ere bulk single layer, bulk in eight
pound baskets, cellophane bags and a combination of bulk single layer
and cellophane bags. The rate of sales of greenhouse tomatoes in the
eight stores was greatest when the tomatoes v/ere displayed in a
combination of bulk single layer and cellophane begs.
The results of the two controlled experiments indicated that 81 the methods of displaying greenhouse tomatoes that were tested did not have a significant effect upon sales. Most of the variation in sales was attributed to differences among stores. During the spring phase of the study sales were adjusted for store differences by means of a four week control period and the variation in sales due to store differences was reduced in most cases.
Although none of the methods of displaying greenhouse tomatoes that were tested resulted in significant changes in sales, it is possible that other methods would have significantly increased sales.
Based upon the results of this study, sales of greenhouse tomatoes were usually greatest when displayed in s combination of bulk and
packages. Even though the increased sales were not statistically
significant it indicates that displays of bulk in combination with
packages might be a means for increasing greenhouse tomato sales.
The trend towards self-service merchandising of produce in re
tail food stores indicates the need for finding ways to merchandise
most produce items in self-service units. If no effective means can
be found for merchandising greenhouse tomatoes in consumer size units
sales are likely to decline because less emphasis will be placed
upon the retail merchandising of the product if it is sold in bulk.
Bulk merchandise requires personnel to package, weigh and price mark
in the display area, and one reason for the trend towards self-service
selling is to eliminate labor in the selling area.
This study indicated that greenhouse tomatoes can be sold in
consumer size packages as effectively as in the traditional bulk
method. Several problems were associated with merchandising greenhouse 82 tomatoes either entirely or partly in packages. There was a resist ance on the part of some store personnel to displaying all greenhouse tomatoes in packages. Produce managers, on several occasions, ordered fewer tomatoes and gave them less display space than they normally would have when they learned that the greenhouse tomatoes would all he packaged.
Some produce managers objected to packaging greenhouse tomatoes in units that weighed less than one pound because, in their opinion, customers complained when they discovered that the packages weighed less than one pound. They indicated that consumers v/ere accustomed to greenhouse tomatoes priced by the pound and assumed that each
oackage contained that amount.
The other problem associated with the merchandising greenhouse
tomatoes in packages is the place where the packaging should be done.
This pi'oblem cannot be resolved without considerable investigation
of the costs involved at the alternative packaging ooints. Only one
of the stores included in this study was doing any extensive packaging
of greenhouse tomatoes. This particular store was eouipped to package
almost any. produce item in the backroom. Greenhouse tomatoes were
frequently packaged in cellophane bags in units of one and one-half
to two pounds. The produce manager was convinced that this was the
best way to merchandise greenhouse tomatoes and he was successful in
using this practice. Most of the stores were not eaufoped to package
greenhouse tomatoes in the backroom, however, nor was there sufficient
labor to package them in the sales area.
Consideration should be given to packaging greenhouse tomatoes 83
"by the growers. Pood retailers could afford to pay more for packaged tomatoes and sell them at the same price as "bulk tomatoes because most of the labor that is required to bag, weigh and price each purchase of bulk tomatoes would be eliminated.
It is the recommendation of this report that greenhouse tomato growers and marketers proceed slowly in packaging and merchandising consumer size units of tomatoes. For one reason, the best package or packages from the standpoint of quality maintenance, cost, and consumer acceptance will reciuire experimentation. Secondly, changes in the methods of marketing a product are not immediately accepted by those who merchandise that product at the retail level. Any attempt to market all or most greenhouse tomatoes in packages may meet with resistance and consequently result in a loss of sales if the conver sion is made in too short a period. All efforts to package greenhouse tomatoes should be performed in close cooperation with produce whole
salers and retail produce buyers and merchandisers.
2. Promotion
Of the two promotion methods tested in the stores, one increased
sales significantly. Placing signs above the display identifying the product a„s greenhouse tomatoes had no significant effect upon sales.
A salad bowl promotion during Friday and Saturday of one week in
creased sales significantly in three of four stores during the pro
motion period. Seles were significantly greater in one store during
the following week while they were significantly higher in another
store during the following four weeks. This promotion consisted of 84 a large metal "bowl filled with salad vegetables featuring greenhouse tomatoes. A demonstrator distributed slices of greenhouse tomatoes and encouraged customers to buy them. Displays were larger than usual in size.
The greatest percentage increase in sales due to the salad bowl promotion resulted in the store which had the lowest ratio of green house to tubed tomato sales prior to the promotion, while the least
increase was obtained in the store which had the highest ratio of greenhouse to tubed tomato sales. The greatest benefits from this
type of promotion can be gained by concentrating upon stores that do a relatively weak job of merchandising greenhouse tomatoes. The re
sults of the promotion encouraged produce deportment managers in some
stores to place more emphasis upon merchandising greenhouse tomatoes.
The results of the promotion and method of display experiments
emphasized the need for "selling" merchandising supervisors and pro
duce personnel on the potential of a product in order to increase
sales at the retail level. This should be an essential element of
any merchandising program to improve the sales of any product since
distribution preceeds sales to ultimate consumers. If a product is
not merchandised effectively, it is extremely difficult to increase
sales by consumer advertising'. The emphasis which greenhouse tomatoes
received appeared to have considerable effect upon their sales in
this study. Thus, it is recommended that those who are interested
in increasing sales of greenhouse tomatoes concentra.te upon the
merchandising of the product at the retail level. This involves
packaging, distribution to retail stores, and handling and displaying 85 in the stores. It includes not only physical problems, but an edu cational approach to acquaint retail merchandisers with the advan tages of adequate and proper merchandising efforts so far as green house tomatoes are concerned.
3. Spoilage loss
A limited investigation of the amount of spoilage loss indi- cated that the rate of greenhouse spoilage was from three to five percent of sales and for tubed tomatoes from six to twelve percent of sales. The causes of spoilage was not completely determined, but improper handling was partly responsible. Refrigerating unripe to matoes was one of the common faults observed in the twelve stores.
Over-ordering was also partly responsible for spoilage. The vari ations in quality of both greenhouse and tubed tomatoes when they were delivered to the stores undoubtedly influenced the amount of spoilage.
This study indicated that it would be worthwhile for retailers to determine the amount of tomato spoilage and the causes in order to price the products more nearly according to the selling costs, and to devise means for reducing spoilage in the stores.
4. Other recommendations
The results of this study indicate a need for additional in vestigation of the effects of price, size of display and other mer chandising factors upon the sales of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes.
A relationship between tubed and greenhouse tomatoes has been indi cated but not analyzed in this study. It would be useful in order to predict price and sales and to more intelligently plan a 86 merchandising program based upon market conditions.
It would also be helpful to greenhouse tomato growers and re tailers if the true net profit of both greenhouse and tubed tomatoes in retail food stores could be determined. This would necessitate a study to find the actual costs of merchandising each product. Such information would enable retailers to more accurately evaluate the mark-up necessary for each to contribute a net profit to the produce operation and to merchandise each according to the amount of profit realized. It would also provide a basis for retailers to determine the premium they could profitably pay for packaged greenhouse to matoes. SECTION II
WHOLESALE PRICE ANALYSIS
The prediction of the wholesale price of greenhouse tomatoes from the anticipated supply of greenhouse and tubed toma.toes and other factors is a continuous process. The process is normally a function of the wholesale dealer who attempts to determine the highest price at v/hich he can move all of the tomatoes on a week to week basis.
Purpose
The purpose of this analysis was to determine the effects of certain factors upon the weekly prices of greenhouse tomatoes. The relationships of the weekly supply of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes and the price of tubed tomatoes to the weekly a.vorage price of green house tomatoes were tested for the 1948-1953 marketing seasons.
Source and Nature of the Data
The data used in this analysis were obtained from the Cincinnati market. Greenhouse tomato supoly and price data were obtained from a wholesale produce firm in Cincinnati that made available complete records of tomato sales for the six years, 1948-1953. The green house tomatoes sold through this firm amounted to about four-fifths
of all the tomatoes produced in the Cincinnati area. The Cincinnati
area is comprised of Hamilton, Montgomery and Butler counties and is
the third most important greenhouse tomato area in Ohio (Table l).
Only one crop of greenhouse tomatoes is produced annually by most
growers in the Cincinnati area. The so-called "red" varieties of
87 88 greenhouse tomatoes are produced in this area whereas most of the greenhouse tomatoes grown in other parts of Ohio are "pink" varieties.
Weekly summaries of greenhouse tomato sales hy auantity, grade, type of package and average price per unit or package were obtained for the period 1948-1953. In the analysis all grades were combined, and all units were converted to eight-pound equivalents. Most of the tomatoes were marketed in eight-pound baskets and the supply and price per eight-pound unit were used in the analysis. Although price data were available for other markets from the Market Mews Service of the
United States Department of Agriculture, no complete supply data for greenhouse tomatoes were available from other markets.
Tubed tomato prices were obtained from the Daily Fruit and
Vegetable Marketing Report published by the Market Hews Service in
Cincinnati. Weekly average prices per carton of ten tubes were used in the analysis.
Ho supply data were available for tubed tomatoes in the Cincin nati market- Carlot unloads of shipped or tubed tomatoes in 16 cities were used to represent the supply of tubed tomatoes. This figure represented the total carlot unloads of tubed tomatoes in 16 major terminal markets from Monday through Thursday of each week.
It was assumed that the supply of tubed tomatoes in Cincinnati changed in proportion to the supply in the 16 major markets.
Analysis and Results
Regression analyses were made in order to test the following
relationships, (l) The effect of the weekly supply on the weekly 89 price of greenhouse tomatoes. (2) Effects of the weekly supply of
tubed tomatoes, upon the average weekly wholesale prices of tuhed
tomatoes. (3) Relationship between the average weekly wholesale price of tubed and greenhouse tomatoes in Cincinnati. (4) Relation
ship of the v/holesale prices of greenhouse tomatoes and the supply of greenhouse tomatoes and the price of tubed tomatoes. This was a multiple regression analysis.
All of the analyses were divided into six components. Since the
data were obtained for six years, 1948-1953, it was considered likely
that the week to week relationships among the various factors would
change over the period. For this reason the data for the years 1948-
1950 and 1951-1953 were analyzed separately as well as together. In
addition, since a crop of greenhouse tomatoes is produced and marketed
in the fall and spring of each year, the fall crops and spring crops
were analyzed separately. For the suring crop analysis, eleven weeks
were included beginning with the week nearest to April 15. For the
fall crop analysis, thirteen weeks were included beginning with the
week nearest October 15. Only eleven weeks were included in the fall
of 1953 since no data were available for January of 1954. These time
periods were chosen to eliminate the early and late marketings of
greenhouse tomatoes which are usually of relatively poor quality,
and in small and uncertain supply. This situation at both the be
ginning and end of each crop is further confused by the difference
in competing field grown tomato (local and shipped) supplies and
possible demand difference during these periods. 90
All price data were adjusted by the Index of Wholesale Prices published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Commerce. Spring crop prices were adjusted by the April Index and the fall cron prices by the October Index.
1. Greenhouse tomato supply and price
(a) Spring crop
The relationships between greenhouse tomato supply and price for the spring crops 1948-1953 pare depicted in Chart 4. The lines of fit were nearly identical for the two, three year periods and for the entire six years.
The degree of relationship is indicated in Table 33. About 42 percent of the variation in wholesale weekly greenhouse tomato prices was explained by the supply of greenhouse tomatoes during the six year period. The relationship between the two variables was more significant during the first three years than during the last three years as indicated by the coefficients of correlation and the standard errors of estimate (Table 33). This analysis indicated that the de mand for greenhouse tomatoes at the wholesale level was highly elastic, especially when the weekly supply was greater than thirty thousand eight pound equivalents. Chart h. Relationship of the Weekly Supply to the Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, by Three Year Periods and for Six Years, Spring Crops, Cincinnati, Ohio, 191*8-1953
Dollars per Basket 1*.00
3.C0
2.00
1.00
191*8-50 Yc - 2.715lt3 + ( -0.0382)x + 0.00039x2 .... 1950-53 Yc - 2.2*8139 + ( -0.02705)x___ + 0.00028x2 - ___ 1918-53 Yc - 2.60627 + (-0.0331*6)x + 0.00035x2 0 0 10 20 30 1*0 50 60 Thousands of Eight Pound Equivalents
Source: Appendix Tables 1*1 and 2*2. 92
Table 33. Measures of Regression of Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Suuply (x), and Price (y) , Snring Crops, 1948-1953
Period Measure 1948-1950 1951-1953 1948-1953
Coefficient of determination 0.6167 0.2524 0.4149
Coefficient of correlation 0.78528 0.50230 0.64413
Error of estimate 0.270 0.383 0.338
Source: Appendix Tables 41 and 42.
(b) Fall crop
Chart 5 shows the relationship between greenhouse tomato supply
and price for the fall crops, 1948-1953.
The supply of greenhouse tomatoes explained less of the vari
ation in weekly greenhouse tomato prices in the fall crops than in
the spring crops (Tables 33 end 34) . There was practically no re
lationship between greenhouse tomato price and suppiy during the fall
crop 1951-1953 and for the six year period, 1948 to 1953 (Table 34).
The demand for the fall crop of greenhouse tomatoes at the wholesale
level appeared to be relatively elastic for the period 1948-1953. Chart 5. Relationship of the Weekly Supply to the Average Weekly Wholesale Pxlce of Greenhouse Tomatoes, by Three Year Periods and for Six Years, Fall Crops, Cincinnati, Ohio, 192*8-1953
Dollars per Basket 3.00
2.CO
1.C0
191*8-50 Yc - 1.80668 0.83l*5lx + (-0.1*5898)x2 1951-53 Yc - 2.13217 (-0.15201) x + 0.01i*6i*x2 191*8-53 Yc - 2.121*30 (-O.OOOOl)x + (-O.Ol*897)x2 0
Thousands of Eight Pound Equivalents
Source: Appendix Tables 1*3 and 1*1*. 94
Table 34. Measures of Regression of Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Supply (x) , and Price (y) , Pall Crops, 1948-1953
Period Measure 1948-1950 1951-1953 1948-1953
Coefficient of determination 0.2632 0.0347 0.1044
Coefficient of correlation 0.51306 0.18627 0.32311
Error of estimate 0.187 0.342 0.287
Source: Appendix Tables 43 and 44.
2. Tubed tomato supply and price
An analysis was made to determine whether carlot unloads of
tubed tomatoes in sixteen major cities was related to the wholesale prices received for tubed tomatoes in Cincinnati. The analysis in
cluded data from 1951-1953 since no comparable data were available previous to that period.
The measures of regression and estimating equations are shown in
Table 35. There was apparently no significant relationship between
sixteen city unloads of tubed tomatoes and tubed tomato prices. It
was concluded that sixteen city unloads was not a good indication of
tubed tomato supplies in Cincinnati. 95
Table 35. Measures of Regression and Estimating Equation* of Sixteen City Unloads, (x) and Cincinnati Wholesale Prices of Tubed Tomatoes (y) , Soring and Pall Crons, 1951-1953
Period Measure Snrina 1951-1953 Pall 1951-1953
Coefficient of determination 0.1366 0.2365
Coefficient of correlation 0.36959 0.48631
Error of estimate 0.388 0.404
a 1.49830 2.30081
b 0.05483 -0.13252
c -0.00474 0.00511
* Yc - a {- bx J- cx^.
Source: Appendix Table 45.
3. Tubed and greenhouse tomato price
(a) Spring crop
For the entire six years, more than 55 percent of the variation
in weekly greenhouse tomato prices was explained by tubed tomato
prices (Table 36 and Chart 6). More of the variation of greenhouse
tomato prices was explained by tubed tomato prices than by the supply
of greenhouse tomatoes during the same period (Tables 33 and 36). Chart 6. Relationship of the Average Weekly Wholesale Price per Carton of Tubed Tomatoes to the Average Weekly Wholesale Price per Basket of Greenhouse Toraatoes, by Three Tear Periods and for Six Tears, Spring Crops, Cincinnati, Ohio, 191:8-1953
Dollars per Basket i*.00 1 ------'------r 191*8-50 Tc (-1*.70536) + 6.3l*868x + (-1.38388 )x^ 1951-53 Tc 0.55897 + 1.23583* + (-0.13862)x2 191*8-53 Yc 0.221*1*9 + 1.31050x + (-0 .1 0 0 2 7 )x 2
3.00
/ , .
2.0C-
1.00
1.00 2.00 3 .0 0 Dollars per Carton
Source* Appendix Table 1*6 97
Table 36. Measures of degression of Weekly Tubed Tomato Prices (x), and Greenhouse Tomato Prices (y), Spring Crop, 1948-1953
Period Measure 1948-1S50 1951-1953 1948-1955 Coefficient of determination 0.41231 0.5228 0.5592
Coefficient of correlation 0.64211 0.72305 0.74780
Error of estimate 0.334 0.306 0.2S4
Source: Appendix Table 46.
(b) Pall crop
Although these relationships between greenhouse and tubed tomato prices for the fall crops are not as significant as those for the spring crops, they indicated that more of the va.ria.tion in greenhouse tomato prices was explained by tubed tomato prices than by the supply of greenhouse tomatoes during the same period (Tables 34 and 37) . The curvilinear relationship between tubed and greenhouse tomato prices for the fall crop, 1948-1953 is depicted in Chart 7. The measures of regression are shown in Table 37.
Table 37. Measures of Regression of Weekly Tubed Tomato Prices (x), and Greenhouse Tomato Prices (y), Pall Crop, 1948-1953
Period Measure 1948-1950 1951-1953 1948-1953
Coefficient of determination 0.2964 0.5150 0.4518 Coefficient of correlation 0.54443 0.71764 0.67216 Error of estimate 0.182 0 i 243 0.225
Source: Appendix Table 47. Chart 7. Relationsldp of the Average Weekly Wholesale Price per Carton of Tubed Tomatoes to the Average V.'eekly Wholesale Price per Basket of Greenhouse Tomatoes, by Three Year Periods and for Six Years, Fall Crops, Cincinnati, Ohio, 191:8-1953
Dollars per Basket 3.00
2.CO
1,00
19U8-50 Yc - 2 .1 9 5 0 9 + (-0.36?9ii)x + 0 .1 6 3 1 6 x 2 ••• 1951-53 Yc - 1.55539 + (-0.12650)* + 0.17789x2 1918-53 Yc - 0.99363 + 0.65195^ + (-0.0U78l)x2 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 Dollars per Carton Source: Appendix Table 1*7 99
There was a direct positive relationship between the wholesale prices of tubed tomatoes and the wholesale prices of greenhouse to matoes for the spring and fall crops, 1948-1953 (Charts 6 and 7).
This suggests that there is a cross-elasticity relationship between the demand for tubed and greenhouse tomatoes.
4. Tubed tomato price, greenhouse tomato supply and price
It seemed logical that the supply of greenhouse tomatoes together with the price of tubed tomatoes would explain more of the variation
in greenhouse tomato prices than either factor alone. Therefore, all
three variables were embodied in a multiple regression analysis. The
estimating equations, t values and significance of the b coefficients for the spring and fall crops, 1948-1953, are shown as follows.^
Xp - average price per eight-pound unit or equivalent of green house tomatoes
Xg - ouantity of greenhouse tomatoes in eight-pound eauiva.lents
Xjj - average price per carton of ten units of tubed tomatoes
a. Spring 1948-1950
X2 = 1.24986 f (-0.01764) X, j- .68955 X3 ( 8.6501)* (6.0385)*
b. Spring 1951-1953
1.1 - 1.22398 f- (-0.01119) Xgf- 0.70965 X3 ( 3.6277)* J (6.2182)*
c. Spring 194-8-1953
X]_ = 1.3459 (-0.08686) Xg f- 0.28401 X3 ( 8.08 45)* (8 . 48 54)*
4 One asterisk indicates significant at the one percent level and two asterisks indicates significant at the five percent level. 100 a. Fall 1948-1950
X, = 1.6553 J- (-0.08686) X2 0.28401 X3 (1.1351)** (3.5658)* e. Fall 1951-1953
Xp r 1.14793 (-0.15592) Xg f 0.59008 X~ (2.6651)** (7.4364)* f. Fall 1948-1953
X-l = 1.35128 f- (-.12094) Xgf 0.45209 Xg (3.0704)* (7.8010)*
The quantity of greenhouse toraatoes and the prices of tubed to matoes together explained more of the variation in the prices of greenhouse tomatoes than either factor alone. The auantity or supply of greenhouse tornadoes and the prices of tubed toraatoes accounted for more than 70 percent of the variation in weekly greenhouse tomato prices during the spring crops 1948-1953. During the fall crops
1948-1953, slightly more than one-half of the variation in greenhouse tomato nrices was explained by the supply of greenhouse tomatoes and the orices of tubed toraatoes (Table 38).
Conclusions
The regression analyses indicated that the wholesale prices of
tubed tomatoes exolained more of the variation in the weekly whole
sale x>rices of greenhouse tomatoes than did the supply of greenhouse
tomatoes. In all cases, the relationships were more significant
during the soring than during the fall crops, 1948 to 1953.. Table 38. Measures of Regression for Multiple Regression of the Quantity of Greenhouse Tomatoes (Xg), and the Price of Tubed Tomatoes (X3) , Upon the Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes (Xi), Spring and Pall Crops, 1948-1953
P eriod Soring Pall Measure 1S43-1950 1951-1953 1948-1953 1948-1950 1951-1953 1948-1953
Coefficient of determination 0.8134 0.6700 0.7172 0.2996 0.6399 0.5138
Coefficient of correlation 0.9019 0.8185 0.8469 0.5455 0.7999 0.7168
Error of estimate 0.197 0.267 0.341 0.189 0.218 0.216
Source: Appendix Tables 41-44, and 46 and 47. 102
A multiple regression analysis indicated, that the supply of greenhouse tomatoes together with the prices of tubed tomatoes could he used to predict the price of greenhouse tomatoes within approxi mately 25 cents per basket, two-thirds of the time. The relationship was more significant for the spring crop data, than for the fall crop data, 1S4S to 1953.
These analyses did not include other factors which might in fluence greenhouse tomato prices. It is likely that a greater pro portion of the variation in greenhouse tomato prices could he ex plained hy additional analyses, and increase the accuracy of pre diction.
The analyses also indicated that the demand for greenhouse to matoes was highly elastic at the wholesale level during the six year period as a whole (Charts 4 and 5) . This was true for hoth the spring
and fall croos. The analysis of the effect of tubed tomato whole
sale prices upon the wholesale prices of greenhouse tomatoes indi
cated that there was a direct, positive relationship between them
(Charts 6 and 7). This relationship indicates that the two products
are substitutes.
A thorough knowledge of the relationships described here should
help those who market greenhouse tomatoes make better informed week
to week pricing decisions than are now possible. Better informed
pricing decisions should enable those who produce and market green
house tomatoes realize higher total returns. APPEHDIX Appendix Table 1. Weekly Greenhouse and Tubed Tomato Sales in Six Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19, 1953 By Method of Display
(In Pounds of Greenhouse and Number of Tubes)
Store Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
November 2-7 Method of Display* A B C A B C Greenhouse Sales in Pounds 113.25 120.25 62.25 106.75 60.75 82.50 545.75 Tubed Sales in Number of Units 493.33 12.7.33 185.33 263.00 118.00 325.00 1,512.00
November 9-14 Method of Display B C A C A 3 Greenhouse Sales in Pounds 163.25 80.25 47.75 99.00 65.25 88.25 543.75 Tubed Sales in Number of Units 324.67 128.00 184.00 254.00 101.67 276.00 1,268.33
November 16-21 Method of Display C A B B C A Greenhouse Sales in Pounds 228.00 138.50** 117.25 102.75 96.75 103.75 787.00 Tubed Sales in Number of Units 268.00 78.00 129.67 180.00 85.33 278.67 1,019.67
Three Week Total Greenhouse Sales in Pounds 504.50 339.00 227.25 308.50 222.75 274.50 1,876.50 Tubed Sales in Number of Units 1.086.00 333.33 499.00 697.00 305.00 879.67 3.800.00 104 Appendix Table 1. (Continued)
Store Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
November 30-December 5 Method of Display* D E F D E F Greenhouse Sales in Pounds 164.25 66.00 118.00 96.00 49.75 68.25 562.25 Tubed Sales in Number of Units 285.33 74.00 92.00 115.00 73.67 221.33 861.33
December 7-12 Method of Display E F D F D E Greenhouse Sales in Pounds 97.00 61.00 90.50 65.00 39.50 76.00 429.00 Tubed Sales in Number of Units 217.33 150.67 124.33 95.33 105.33 215.33 908.33
December 14-19 Method of Display P D E E F D Greenhouse Sales in Pounds 68.75 61.00 58.25 48.50 40.75 73.25 350.50 Tubed Sales in Number of Units 387.00 150.67 111.33 199.00 75.67 213.00 1.136.67
Three Week Total Greenhouse Sales in Pounds 330.00 188.00 266.75 209.50 130.00 217.50 1,341.75 Tubed Sales in Number of Units 889.67 375.33 327.66 '409.33 254.67 649.67 2,906.33
*A - Bulk in eight pound backets. D Polyethylene bags. B - Bulk single layer and cellophane bags. E Cellophane bags C = Bulk single layer. E Bulk single layer. ** Includes 24 pounds sold in cellophane bags. Appendix Table 2. Weekly Tubed Tomato Sales in Six Retail Food Stores, in Pounds*, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19, 1953
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (Pounds)
November 2-7 416.25 107.43 156.38 221.91 99.56 274.22 1,275.75
November 9-14 273.94 108.00 155.25 214.31 85.78 232.87 1,070.15
November 16-21 226.13 65.81 109.41 151.88 72.00 235.12 860.35
Total 916.32 281.24 421.04 588.10 257.34 742.21 3,206.25
November 30-December 5 240.75 62.44 77.62 97.03 62.16 186.75 726.75
December 7-12 183.38 127.12 104.90 80.44 88.88 181.69 766.41
December14-19 326.53 127.13 93.93 167.91 63.84 159.72 959.06
Total 750.66 316.69 276.45 345.38 214.88 548.16 2,452.22
*Tubes of tomatoes were converted to pounds by using 13 ■§• ounces as the average weight per tube.
Source: Appendix Table 1. Appendix Table 3. Weekly G-reenhou.se Tomato Sales in Dollars, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19, 1953
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (Dollars)
November 2-7 33.54 37.13 19.21 32.88 18.26 24.83 165.86
November9-14 63.67 31.30 18.62 38.61 25.45 34.42 212.06
November 16-21 79.80 48 .48 41.04 35.96 33.86 36.31 275.44
Total 177.01 116.81 78.87 107.45 77.57 95.56 653.36
November 30-December 5 73.10 30.14 54.62 43.54 23.25 32.02 256.68
December 7-12 47.53 29.89 44.35 31.86 19.36 37.25 210.21
December 14-19 33.69 29.89 28.54 23.77 19.97 35.89 171.74
Total 154.32 89.92 127.51 99.17 62.58 105.16 638.63 107 Appendix Table 4. Weekly Tubed Tomato Sales in Dollars, Six Retail Rood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19, 1953
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (Dollars)
November 2-7 99.39 26.22 39.16 55.58 23.95 65.85 310.17
November 9-14 81.17 32.00 46.00 63.50 25.42 69.00 317.09
November 16-r21 88.44 25.74 42.79 59.40 28.16 91.96 336.49
Total 269.00 83.96 127.95 178.48 77.53 226.81 963.75
November 30-December 5 107.37 27.94 35.13 42.96 27.69 84.92 326.01
December 7-12 65.16 45.43 36.94 29.75 31.48 63.99 272.75
December 14-19 112.23 43.69 32.29 57.71 21.95 61.77 329.63
Total 284.76 117.06 104.36 130.42 81.12 210.68 928.39 Appendix Table 5. Weekly Produce Seles in Dollars, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-December 19, 1953
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (Dollars)
November 2-7 3,696 2,109 1,158 1,485 1,356 2,593 12,397
November 9-14 3,143 1,996 1,174 1,569 1,385 2,452 11,719
November 16-21 3.505 1.983 1.200 1.541 1,424 2.605 12.258
Three week total 10,344 6,088 3,532 4,595 4,165 7,650 36,374
November 23-28* 3,840 2,311 1,354 1,803 1,566 2,928 13,802
November 30-December 5 3,432 2,204 1,320 1,606 1,516 2,662 12,560
December 7-12 2,937 2,208 1,304 1,581 1,473 2,643 12,146
December 14-19 3,882 2,466 1,477 1,840 1,658 3,109 14,432
Three week total** 10,251 6 ,698 4,101 5,027 4,647 8,414 39,138
Six week total** 20,595 12,786 7,633 9,622 8 ,812 16,064 75,512
* Thanksgiving week. ** Excluding Thanksgiving week. Appendix Table 6. Weekly Greenhouse, Tubed, and Total Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Six Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, Six Weeks, November 2-31 and November 30-Pecember 19, 1953
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (Pounds)
One Greenhouse 30.64 57.02 53.76 71.89 44.80 31.82 44.02 Tubed 112.62 50.94 135.04 149.43 73.42 105.75 102.91
Total 143.26 107.96 188.80 221.32 118.22 137.57 146.93
Two Greenhouse 51.94 40.21 40.67 63.10 47.11 35.99 46.40 Tubed 87.16 54.11 132.24 136.59 61.94 94.97 91.32
Total 139.10 94.32 172.91 199.69 105.05 130.96 137.72
Three Greenhouse 65.05 69.84* 97.71 66.68 67.94 39.83 64.20 Tubed 64.52 33.19 91.18 98.56 50.56 90.26 70.19
Total 129.57 103.03 188.89 165.24 118.50 130.09 134.39
Three Week Total Greenhouse 48.77 55.68 64.34 67.14 53.48 35.88 51.59 Tubed 88.53 46.20 119.21 127.99 61.79 97.02 88.15
Total 137.35 101.88 183.55 195.13 115.27 132.90 139.74 110 Appendix Table 6. (Continued)
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 5 Total (Pounds)
Four Greenhouse 47.86 32.61 89.39 59.78 32.82 25.64 44.77 Tubed 70.15 30.85 58.80 60.42 41.00 70.15 57.86
Total 118.01 63.46 148.19 120.20 73.82 95.79 102.63
Five Greenhouse 33.03 27.63 69.40 41.11 26.82 28.76 35.32 Tubed 62.44 57.57 80.44 50.88 60.34 68.74 63.10
Total 95.47 85.20 149.84 91.99 87.16 97.50 98.42
Six Greenhouse 17.71 24.74 39.44 26.36 24.58 2,3.56 24.29 Tubed 84.11 51.55 63.60 91.26 38.50 57.81 66.45
Total 101.82 76.29 103.04 117.62 63 .08 81.37 90.74
Three Week Total Greenhouse 32.19 28.07 65.05 41.67 27.98 25.85 34.28 Tubed 73.23 47.28 67.41 68.70 46 .24 65.15 62.66
Total 105.42 75.35 132.46 110.37 74.22 91.00 96.94
Six Week Total Greenhouse 40.52 41.22 64.72 53.83 40.03 30.63 42.62 Tubed 80.94 46.76 91.38 97.02 53.59 80.33 74.93 Total 121.46 87.98 156.10 150.85 93.62 110.96 117.55
*Based upon sales which include 24 pounds sold in cellophane bags- Adjusted to 59.95 pounds
according to procedure outlined by Snedecor, George W., Statistical Methods, 4th edition, Iowa Ill State College Press, Ames, Iowa, 1946, pp. 268-274. Source: Appendix Tables 1, 2 and 5. Appendix Table 7. Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales (in Founds) as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Founds), by Method of Display, Six Retail Grocery Stores, Columbus, Ohio, Six Weeks, November 2-21, November 30-December 19, 1953
Store Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (Ratio)
Week One 27.21 111.93 39.81 48.11 61.02 30.09 42.78
Week Two 59.59 74.31 30.76 46.19 76.07 37.90 50.81
Week Three 100.82 210.45* 107.17 67.65 134 .38 44.12 91.49
Three Week Average 55.06 120.54 53.97 52.46 86.56 33.35 58.53
Week Four 68.22 120.54 152.02 98.94 80.04 36 .55 77.36
Week Five 52.90 47.99 86.27 80.81 4A.44 41.83 55.98
Week Six 21.05 47.98 62.01 28.88 63.83 40.76 26.76
Three Week Average 43.96 59.36 96.49 60.66 60.50 39.68 54.72
Six Week Average 50.06 83.14 70.82 55.49 74.70 38.13 56.87
*Based upon greenhouse sales that includes 24 pounds sold in cellophane bags- Adjusted to 126.70 pounds according to procedure outlined by Snedecor, George W . , Ibid.
Source; Appendix Tables 1 and 2. 113
Appendix Table 8. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds) , Stores 1-3, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Souares Souares p*
Total 8 11,454.43 1,431.80
Weeks (rows) 2 5,929.93 2,964.96 29.344**
Stores (columns) 2 3,786.86 1,893.43 18.739
Treatments 2 1,535.56 767.78 7.688
Error 2 202.08 101.04
* Variance Ratio (v\ _ Mean souare Error mean square Value for P at the .05 level when Ni = 2 and N^ = 2 is 18.999. ** Significant at the .05 level.
Source: Appendix Table 7.
Anpendix Table 9. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds), Stores 4-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Souares Scuares F Total 8 7,814.07 976.76
Weeks (rows) 2 2,140.76 1,070.38 2.588
Stores (columns) 2 4,^30.48 2,215.24 5.357
Treatments 2 415.73 207.86 0.503
Error 2 827.10 413.55
Source: Appendix Table ?. 114
Appendix Table 10. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds), Stores 1-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Souares Souares F
Total 17 20,247.82 1,191.05
Weeks (rows) 2 7,477.00 3,738.50 10.734*
Stores (columns) 5 9,196.66 1,839.33 5,281**
Treatments 2 787.73 393.86 1.131
Error 8 2,786.43 348.30
* Significant at the .01 level. ** Significant at the .05 level. Source: Appendix Table 7.
Appendix Table 11. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per Si,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 1-3, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Souares Souares F
Total 8 2,981.70 372.71
Weeks (rows) 2 1,640.25 820.12 290.823*
Stores (columns) 2 366.06 183.03 64.904**
Treatments 2 969.76 484.88 171.94 *
Error 2 5.63 2.82
* Significant at the .01 level. ** Significant at the .05 level.
Source: Appendix Table 6 . 115
Appendix Table 12. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 4-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1953
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F Total 8 1,875.66 234.458
Weeks (rows) 2 164.03 82.015 0.865
Stores (columns) 2 1,479.60 739.800 7.805
Treatments 2 42.46 21.230 0.224
Error 2 189.57 94.785
Source: Appendix Table 6 .
Appendix Table 13. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales (in Pounds) Per Si,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 1-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F Total 17 4,900.26 288.25
Weeks (rows) 2 1,420.79 710.40 4.550*
Stores (columns) 5 1,888.57 377.71 2.419
Treatments 2 341.87 170.94 1.095
Error 8 1,249.03 156.13
* Significant at the .05 level.
Source: Appendix Table 6. 116
Appendix Table 14. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds), Stores 1-3, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1953
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F Total 8 13,177.81 1,647.23
Weeks (rows) 2 7,859.94 3,929.97 8.161
Stores (columns) 2 4,172.48 2,086.24 4.332
Treatment s 2 182.26 91.13 0.189
Error 2 963.13 481.57
Source: Appendix Table 7.
Appendix Table 15. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales, (in Pounds), Stores, 4-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1953
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F Total 8 4,762.87 595.36
Weeks (rows) 2 1,134.55 567.28 0.587
Stores (columns) 2 1,467.32 733.66 0.759
Treatments 2 227.80 113.90 0.118
Error 2 1,933.20 966.60
Source: Appendix Table 7. 11?
Appendix Table 16. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales as a Percentage of Tubed Tomato Sales (in Pounds) , Stores 1-6.Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares 3? Total 1? 19,075.14 1,122.07
Weeks (rows) 2 7,446.17 3,723.08 6.171*
Stores (columns) 5 6,774.27 1,354.85 2.246
Treatments 2 27.91 13.96 0.023
Error 8 4,826.79 603.35
♦Significant at the .05 level.
Source: Appendix Table 7.
Appendix Table 17. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 1-3, Columbus, Ohio.., November 30- December 19, 1953
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares S ouares F Total 8 4,298.89 537.361
Weeks (rows) 2 1,293.68 646.840 6.416
Stores (columns) 2 2,548.58 1,274.290 12.641
Treatments 2 255.01 127.505 1.265
Error 2 201.62 100.810
Source: Appendix Table 6 . 118
Appendix Table 18. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales in Pounds Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 4-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 30-December 19, 1953
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F
Total 8 1,091.04 136.380
Weeks (rows) 2 318.89 159.445 1.622
Stores (columns) 2 480.03 240.015 2.442
Treatments 2 95.53 47.765 0.486
Error 2 196.59 98.295
Source: Aooendix Table 6 .
Appendix Table 19. Variance Table for Greenhouse Tomato Sales (in Pounds) Per $1,000 of Total Produce Sales, Stores 1-6, Columbus, Ohio, November 30- December 19, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Kean Variance Freedom Sauares Souares F
Total 17 5,864.04 344.94
Weeks (rows) 2 708.71 354.36 2.085
Stores (columns) 5 3,502.72 700.54 4.121*
Treatments 2 292.79 146.40 0.861
Error 8 1,359.82 169.98
* Significant at the .05 level.
Source: Appendix Table 6. 119
Appendix Table 20. 'Weekly Spoilage Loss of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Pounds, Six Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21 and November 30-December 19, 1953
Week Store 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
1 0.75 1.25 8.00 12.75 8.50 1.25 32.50
3 6.50 7.25 4.50 0.25 3.75 3.75 26.00
5 0.25 0.75 3.25 11.50 12.25 0.25 28.25
Total 7.50 9.25 15.75 24.50 24.50 5.25 86.75
2 2.75 2.75 1.50 0.00 0.25 1.75 9.00
4 1.25 0.00 4.50 1.00 2.75 2.50 12.00
6 0.50 1.75 4.25 1.75 2.25 1.50 12.00
Total 4.50 4.50 10.25 3.75 5.25 5.75 33.00 120
Appendix Table 21. Weekly Spoilage Loss of Tubed Tomatoes, in Number of Tubes, Six Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, November 2-21 and November 30-December 19, 1953
Week Store 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
1 4.67 7.00 37.00 55.00 58.33 12.33 174.33
3 43.67 14.00 16.00 17.67 28.00 6.67 126.00
5 10.00 8.33 18.67 27.33 28.33 8.67 101.33
Total 58.33 29.33 71.67 100.00 114.67 27.67 401.67
2 2.33 3.33 4.00 5.00 9.00 13.00 36.67
4 3.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 4.33 0.00 18.33
6 1.00 1.00 2.67 3.00 23.33 29.00 60.00
Total 6.33 8.33 7.67 14.00 36.67 42.00 115.00 Appendix Table 22. Weekly Greenhouse and Tubed Tomato Sales in Twelve Hetail Pood Stores, Wine Weeks, April 26-June 26, Columbus, Ohio, 1954
(in Pounds of Greenhouse and Wumber of Tubes of Tubed Tomatoes)
Store 1 2 3 4 Total Green Green Green Green Green Week house Tubed house Tubed house Tubed house Tubed house Tubed April 26-May 1 223.00 249.67 328.00 199.00 87.00 170.00 351.50 237.00 989.50 855.67
May 3-8 172.00 174.00 320.00 275.33 81.00 174.67 158.25 242.33 731.25 865 .33
May 10-15 244.00 328.00 395.75 248.67 62.50 148.33 162.75 259.67 865.00 984.67
May 17-22 433.50 317.67 236.75 300.00 70.00 .204.67 207.50 330.67 947.75 1,153.00
Average 268.12 267.33 320.12 255.75 75.12 174.42 220.00 267.42 883.38 964.92
May 24-29* 821.75 222.00 736.25 402.00 158 .75 179.33 333.00 344.33 2,049.75 1,147.67
June 1-5 811.75 370.57 349.75 415.00 115.75 215.00 415.50 370.67 1,692.75 1,372.33
June 7-12 1,012.75 415.67 ‘*29.75 457.00 147.75 205.00 316.25 390.00 1,906.50 1,467.67
June 14-19 651.00 651.00 362.25 605.67 194.75 240.33 169.00 404.67 1,377.00 1,901.67
June 21-26 714.00 509.00 321.00 635.33 109.75 248.67 285.50 314.33 1,430.25 1,707.33
Average 797.38 486.58 365.69 528 . 50 142.00 227.25 296.56 369.92 1,601.62 1,612.25 Appendix Table 22. (Continued)
Store 5 6______7 8 Total Green Green Green Green Green Week house Tubed house Tubed house Tubed house Tubed house Tubed
April 26-May 1 122.00 222.67 759.00 561.33 171.75 120.33 63.00 156.67 1,115.75 1,061.00
May 3-8 122.75 189.67 634.25 541.00 151.00 164.33 47.50 132.33 955.50 1,027.33
May 10-15 95.50 229.67 561.50 769.33 155.00 160.00 54.00 140.67 966.00 1,299.67
May 17-22 150.50 227.33 1,071.00 727.00 124.50 172.33 54.00 214.33 1,400.00 1,341.00
Average 122.69 217.33 781.44 649.67 150.56 154.25 54.62 161.00 1,109.31 1,182.25
May 24-29** 200.50 152.00 1,420.75 798.33 233.50 149.67 165.50 219.33 2,020.25 1,329.33
June 1-5 172.00 209.00 860.50 639.00 211 . 50 234.00 102.00 155.00 1,346.00 1,237.00
June 7-12 140.00 185.00 611.00 915.67 312.25 213.33 92.50 246.33 1,155.75 1,560.33
June 14-19 217.00 189.00 805.25 566.33 196.75 231.00 96.00 205.00 1,315.00 1,191.33
June 21-26 246.00 299.00 1,013.00 654.00 188.75 236.00 87.50 292.00 1,535.25 1,481.00
Average 193.75 220.50 822.44 693.75 227.31 228.58 945.00 224.58 1,338.00 1,367.42
122p- Appendix Table 22. (Continued)
Store 9 10 11 12 Total Green Green Green Green Green Week house Tubed house Tubed house Tubed house Tubed house Tubed
April 26-May 126.25 408.00 259.00 295.67 761.00 652.00 1,814.75 952.67 2,961.00 2,308.33
Kay 3-8 124.25 452.00 144.00 278.00 568.50 469.33 1,013.00 1,036.67 1,849.75 2,236.00
May 10-15 64.25 408.33 155.00 244.00 522.50 1,224.67 1,032.00 1,873.67 1,773.75 3,750.67
Kay 17-22 91.50 496.67 169.25 472.00 1,382.50 631.67 2,707.00 1,234.67 4,350.25 2,835.00
Average 101.56 441.25 181.81 322.42 808.62 744.42 1,641.69 1,274.42 2,733.68 2,782.50
May 24-29f 756.25 513.00 669.50 306.67 3,145.50 418.67 3,786.00 1,250.67 8,357.25 2,489.00
June 1-5 487.50 444.00 231.00 370.33 2,773.50 607.33 349.00 1,514.00 5,982.00 2,935.67
June 7-12 324.00 547.33 267.25 342.33 1,741.25 401.00 3,831.75 910.00 5,614.25 2,200.67
June 14-19 326 . 50 546.00 312.75 423.33 1,410.50 1,310.67 1,950.50 2,487.00 4,000.25 4,767.00
June 21-26 314.00 549.00 235.00 471.00 780.50 1,059.00 1,816.00 1,831.00 3,145.50 3,910.00
Average 363.00 521.58 261.50 401.75 1,676.44 844.50 2,772.06 1,685.50 5,073.00 3,453.33
*Fo promotion. **Lettered sign with words "Greenhouse Tomatoes" above display, h Special "salad bowl" promotion on Friday and Saturday. Appendix Table 23. Weekly Experimental Sales of Greenhouse and Tubed Tomatoes, Three Latin Squares, Twelve Reta.il Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954*
(in Pounds of Greenhouse and Number of Tubes)
Store Week 4 Total
June 1-5 Method of display** A B C D Greenhouse sales 811.75 259.50 115.75 415.50 1,602.50 Tubed sales 370.67 362.67 215.00 370.67 1,319.00
June 7-12 Method of display B A D C Greenhouse sales 525.25 349.75 147.75 269.50 1,292.25 Tubed sales 204.67 357.00 205.00 327.00 1,093.67
June 14-19 Method of display C D A B Greenhouse sales 651.00 362.25 194.75 169.00 1,377.00 Tubed sales 651.00 605.67 240.33 404.67 1,901.67
June 21-26 Method of display D C B A Greenhouse sales 714.00 321.09 39.50 205.50 1,.280.00 Tubed sales 509.00 635.33 120.33 299.33 1,564.00
Total Greenhouse sales 2,702.00 1,292.50 497.75 1,059.50 5,551.75 Tubed sales 1,735.33 1,960.67 780.67 1,401.67 5,878.33 Appendix Table 23. (Continued)
Store Week 5 6 7 8 Total
June 1-5 Method of display** A B C D Greenhouse sales 172.00 295.75 211.50 102.00 781.25 Tubed sales 209.00 462.00 234.00 155.00 1,060.00
June 7-12 Method of display B A D C Greenhouse sales 103.25 609.00 312.25 92.50 1,144.00 Tubed sales 125.00 532.00 213.33 246.33 1,116.67
June 14-19 Method of display C D A B Greenhouse sales 173.00 521.00 192.75 96.00 982.75 Tubed sales 128.00 408.00 219.00 205.00 960.00
June 21-26 Method of display D C B A Greenhouse sales 214.00 1,013.00 70.00 87.50 1,384.50 Tubed sales 265.00 654.00 129.00 292.00 1,340.00
Total Greenhouse sales 689.25 2,438.75 786.50 378.00 4,292.50 Tubed sales 727.00 2,056.00 795.33 898.33 4,467.67 125 Appendix Table 23. (Continued)
Store Week 9 10 11 12 Total
June 1-5 Method of disnlay** A 3 C D Greenhouse sales 487.50 159.00 2,413.50 3.040.00 6 ,100.00 Tubed sales 444.00 316.00 562.33 1.310.00 2,632.33
June 7-12 Method of display B A D c Greenhouse sales 324.00 267.25 854.25 1,470.00 2,915.50 Tubed sales 547.33 342.33 208.00 635.00 1,732.67
June 14-19 Method of display C D A B Greenhouse sales 326.50 312.75 1,045.75 946.00 2.631.00 Tubed sales 546.00 423.33 1,207.67 967.00 3.144.00
June 21-26 Method of display B C B A Greenhouse sales 314.00 114.00 659.00 1,816.00 2.903.00 Tubed sales 549.00 423.00 811.00 1,831.00 3.614.00
Total Greenhouse sales 1,452.00 853.00 4,972.50 7.272.00 14,549.50 Tubed sales 2,085.33 1,504.67 2,789.00 4.743.00 11,123.00
* Includes sales only when an adequate supply of both greenhouse and tubed tomatoes were on hand.
** A = bulk: single layer. B z cellophane bags. C r bulk in basket D r bulk and cellophane bags. 127
Append-Ax Table 24. Total Sales of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in ^otinds, Adjusted by Control Period Index, Twelve Retail p004 stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954
Store Week 1 2 3 A Total
Control Psjrlod Index* 1 0 0 . 0 0 119.39 28.02 82.05
June 1-5 811.75 292.95 413.10 506.40 2,024.20
June 7-12 1,012.75 359.95 527.30 385.44 2,285.44
June 14-19 651.00 303.42 695.04 205.97 1,855.43
June 21-26 714 . 0 0 268.87 391.68 347.96 1,722.51
Total 3,189.50 1 ,225.19 2,027.12 1,445.77 7,887.58
Appendix Table 24. (Continued)
Store Week_ 5 6 7 8 Total Control Pear iod Index* 45.76 291.45 56.15 20.37
June 1-5 3 7 5 . 8 7 295.25 376 .67 500.74 1,548 .53
June 7-12 305.94 209.64 556.10 454.10 1,525.78
June 14-19 474.21 276.29 350.40 471.28 1,572.18
June 21-26 537.59 347.57 336.15 429.55 1,650.86
Total 1,693.61 1,128.75 1,619.32 1,855.67 6,297.35 128
Appendix Ta"ble 24. (Continued)
Store Week 9 10 11 12 Total
Control Period Index* 37.88 67.81 301.59 612.28
June 1-5 1,286.96 340.66 919 .63 570.00 3,117.25
June 7-12 855.33 394.12 577.36 625.82 2,452.63
June 14-19 861.93 461.22 467.69 318.56 2,109.40
June 21-26 828.93 346.56 258.80 296.60 1,730.89
Total 3,833.15 1,542.56 2,223.48 1,810.98 9,410.17
* Based upon average weekly sales from April 26-May 22. Store 1 - 100.
Source: Appendix Ta’ole 22. 129
Appendix Table 25. Ratios of Greenhouse Tomato Sales, (in Pounds) , to Tubed Tomato Sales (in Number of Tubes) Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-June 26, 1954
Store Week 1 2 3 4 Average
April 26-May 1 0.89318 1.648 24 0.51176 1.48312 1.15640
May 3-8 0.98850 1.16224 0.46373 0.65304 0.84408
M a y 10-15 0.74390 1.59147 0.42136 0.62576 0.87847
M a y 17-22 1.36462 0.78917 0.34201 0.62751 0.82199
Average 1.00296 1.25171 0.43072 0.82268 0.91549
M a y 24-29 3.70158 1.83147 0.88524 0.96710 1.78601
June 1-5* 2.18995 0.71553 0.53837 1.12094 1.21494
June 7-12* 2.56633 0.97969 0.72073 0.82416 1.18157
June 14-19* 1.00000 0.59810 0.81034 0.41762 0.72410
June 21-26* 1.40275 0.50525 0.32826 0.68653 0.81841
Average 1.55705 0.65921 0.63759 0.75588 0.94444 Appendix Table 25. (Continued)
Store Week 5 6 7 8
April 26-May 1 0.54790 1.35215 1.42732 0.40212
May 3-8 0.64718 1.17237 0.91888 0.35895
May 10-15 0.41581 0.8 5984 0.96875 0.38388
May 17-22 0.66203 1.47317 0.72245 0.25195
Average 0.56452 1.20283 0.97609 0.33929
May 24-29 1.23765 1.77965 1.56010 0.75457
June 1-5* 0.82297 0.64015 0.90385 0.65806
June 7-12* 1.04200 1.14474 1.45369 0.37551
June 14-19* 1.35156 1.27696 0.88014 0.46829
June 21-26* 0.80755 1.54892 0.54264 0.29966
Average 0.94807 1.18616 0.98890 0.42078 130
Appendix Table 25. (Continued)
Store Week 5 6 7 8 Average
April 26-May 1 0.54790 1.35215 1.42732 0.40212 1.05160
May 3-8 0.64718 1.17237 0.91888 0.35895 0.93008
May 10-15 0.41581 0.85984 0.96875 0.38388 0.74327
May 17-22 0.66203 1.47317 0.72245 0.25195 1.04400
Average 0.56452 1.20283 0.97609 0.33929 0.93831
May 24-29 1.23765 1.77965 1.56010 0.75457 1 ..51975
June 1-5* 0.82297 0.64015 0.90385 0.65806 0.73703
June 7-12* 1.04200 1.14474 1.4-6369 0.37551 1.02447
June 14-19* 1.35156 1.27696 0.88014 0.46829 1.02370
June 21-26* 0.80755 1.54892 0.54264 0.29966 1.03321
Average 0.94807 1.18616 0.98890 0.42078 0.95886 131
Appendix Table 35. (Continued)
Store Week 9 10 11 12 A xrenrage
April 26-May 1 0.30944 0.85798 1.16718 1.90490 1 - S B 275
May 3-8 0.27489 0.51799 1.31130 0.97717 0 . 8 27 2 6
May 10-15 0.15735 0.63525 0.42665 0.55080 0 . 4 f ? 2 9 2
May 17-22 0.18423 0.35858 2.18864 2.19249 1 - E>34 4 8
Average 0.23017 0.56390 1.08625 1.28819 O . 8 8 2 4 6
May 24-29 1.47417 2.18313 7.51307 2.02718 3 -2 3 5 7 6 7
June 1-5* 1.09797 0.50316 4.29196 2.32061 2 . 3 3 . 7 3 4
June 7-12* 0.59196 0.78068 4.10697 2.31496 1 - S S 2 6 6
June 14-19* 0.59799 0.73879 0.86592 0.97828 0 - 8 36 8 3
June 21-26* 0.57195 0.26950 0.81258 0.99181 O . 8 03 2 7
Average 0.69596 0.56690 1.78290 1.53321 1 - £30 8 0 6
* Based upon experimental sales of greenhouse and tubed to m a t o e s .
Source: Appendix Tables 22 and 23. 133
Appendix Table 26. Ratios of Greenhouse Tomato Sales, (in Pounds) to Tubed Tomato Sales, (in Humber of Tubes*) Adjusted by Control Period Index, Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-36, 1954
Store Week 1 2 3 4 Average Control Period Index** 100.00 124.80 42.94 82.03 91.28
June 1-5 2.18995 0.57334 1.25377 1.36650 1.33100
June 7-12 2.56633 0.78500 1.67846 1.00471 1.29445
June 14-19 1.00000 0.47924 1.88714 0.50911 0.79327
June 21-26 1.40275 0.40484 0.76446 0.83693 0.89659
Average 1.55705 0.52821 1.48484 0.92147 1.03466
Appendix Table 36. (Continued)
Store Week 5 6 7 8 Average Control Period Index** 56.29 119.93 97.32 33.83 93.55
June 1-5 1.46202 0.53377 0.92874 1.94520 0.78785
June 7-12 1.85113 0.95451 1.50400 1.11000 1.09510
June 14-19 2.40107 1.06475 0.90438 1.38424 1.09428
June 21-26 1.43462 1.29152 0.55758 0.88578 1.10445
Average 1.68426 0.98904 1.01613 1.24381 1.02497 133
Appendix Table 26. (Continued)
Store Week 9 10 11 12 Average
Control Period Index** 22.95 56.22 108.30 128.44 97.96
June 1-5 4.78418 0.89498 3.96303 1.80677 2.36560
June 7-12 2.57935 1.38862 3.79222 1.80237 1.71770
June 14-19 2.60562 1.31410 0.79956 0.76166 0.85426
June 21-26 2.49216 0.47937 0.75030 0.77220 0.82000
Average 3.03251 1.00836 1.64626 1.19372 1.33530
* Based upon experimental sales of greenhouse and tubed tomatoes. ** Based upon average weekly sales from April 26-May 22, Store 1 = 100.
Source: Appendix Table 25. 134
Appendix Table 27. Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Stores 1-4, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F Total 15 1,062,144 70,810
Weeks (rows) 3 45,339 15,113 1.577
Stores (columns) 3 945,095 315,032 32.881*
Treatments 3 14,222 4,741 0.495
Error 6 57,488 9,581
* Significant a/t the .01 level.
Source: Appendix Table 22.
Appendix Table 28. Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Stores 5-8, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F
Total 15 1,406,306 93,754
Weeks (rows) 3 18,322 6,107 0.757
Stores (columns) 3 1,307,038 435,679 54.028*
Treatments 3 32,564 10,855 1.346
Error 6 48,382 8,064
* Significant a.t the .01 level.
Source: Appendix Table 22. 135
Appendix Table 29. Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Stores 1-8, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Snuares F
Total 15 2,223,983 148 , 266
Weeks (rows) 3 21,779 7,260 0.435
Stores (columns) 3 2,089,779 696,593 41.785*
Treatments 3 12,400 4,133 0.248
Error 6 100,025 16,671
* Significant at the .01 level.
Source: Appendix Table 22.
Appendix Table 30. Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Adjusted by Control Period Index**, Stores 1-4, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26,1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F
Total 15 763,719 50,915
Weeks (rows) 3 44,091 14,697 0.836
Stores (columns) 3 580,572 193,524 11.008*
Treatments 3 33,568 11,189 0.636
Error 6 105,488 17,581
* Significant at the .01 level. ** Based upon sales during April 26-Ma.y 22. Store 1 - 100.
Source: Appendix Table 24. 136
Appendix Table 31. Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Adjusted by Control Period Index*, Stores 5-8, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F
Total 15 149,006 9,934
Weeks (rows) 3 2,256 752 0.141
Stores (columns) 3 73,494 24,498 4.602
Treatment s 3 41,318 13,773 2.587
Error 6 31,938 5,323
♦Based upon sales during April 26-May 22. Store 1 = 100.
Source: Appendix Table 24.
Appendix Table 32. Variance Table for Weekly Greenhouse Tomato Sales, in Pounds, Adjusted by Control Period Index**, Stores 1-8, Columbus, Ohio, June 1-26,1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F
Total 15 995,500 66,367
Weeks (rows) 3 28,648 9,549 0.638
Stores (columns) 3 820,283 273,428 18.277*
Treatments 3 56,808 18,936 1.266
Error 6 89,761 14,960
* Significant at the .01 level. ** Based upon sales during April 26-May 22. Store 1 - 100.
Source: Appendix Ta.ble 24. 137
Appendix Table 33. Variance Table for Ratios of Experimental Greenhouse Tomato Sales, (in Pounds) to Tubed Tomato Sales, (in Humber of Tubes), Adjusted by Control Period Index, Stores 1-4, June 1-36, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance______Freedom______Squares______Squares______F
Total 15 61,978.821 4,131.921
Weeks (rows) 3 11,480.797 3,826.932 2.206
Stores (columns) 3 34,577.764 11,525.921 6.643**
Treatments 3 5,510.272 1,836.757 1.059
Error 6 10,409.988 1,734.998
** Significant at the .05 level.
Source: Appendix Table 26.
Appendix Table 34. Variance Table for Ratios of Experimental Greenhouse Tomato Sales, (in Pounds) to Tubed Tomato Sales, (in Humber of Tubes), Adjusted by Control Period Index, Stores 5-8, June 1-26, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Sauares Sauares F Total 15 38,190.561
Weeks (rows) 3 3,601.506 1,200.502 0.709
Stores (columns) 3 18,171.647 6,057.216 3.580
Treatments 3 6,264.750 2,088.250 1.234
Error 6 10,150.905 1,691.818
Source: Appendix Table 26. 138
Appendix Table 35. Variance Table for Ratios of Experimental Greenhouse Tomato Sales, (in Pounds) to Tubed Tomato Sales, (in Humber of Tubes), Adjusted by Control Period Index, Stores 1-8, June 1-26, 1954
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance freedom Sauares Sauares f
Total 15 137,530.81 9,168.72
Weeks (rows) 3 19,713.38 6,571.13 1.589
Stores (columns) 3 86,915.16 28,971.72 7.006**
Treatments 3 6,089.56 2,029.85 0.491
Error 6 24,812.71 4,135.45
** Significant at the .05 level.
Source: Appendix Table 26. Appendix Table 36. Average Prices of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Twelve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-June 26, 1954
(in cents per pound)
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (Cents)
April 26-May 1 45 45 46 46 46 45 46 47 46 46 45 45
M a y 3-8 49 49 50 47 49 49 49 50 50 49 49 45
May 10-15 49 49 50 49 49 49 49 50 50 49 49 49
May 17-22 40 49 50 49 49 40 49 50 50 50 40 43
May 24-29 39 40 39 39 40 39 41 40 39 40 39 39
June 1-5 36 41 39 39 39 37 39 41 39 39 36 35
June 7-12 31 39 41 39 44 33 41 39 43 39 29 32
June 14-19 36 41 39 45 39 39 39 44 39 41 35 38
June 21-26 39 43 49 45 44 39 47 45 46 43 39 39 139 Appendix Table 37. Average Prices of Tubed Tomatoes in Twelve Retail Pood Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-June 26, 1954
(In cents per tube)
Store Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (Cents)
April 26-May 1 29 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 35 33 35 32
May 3-8 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 37 35 35 35
May 10-15 25 35 35 35 35 26 26 27 30 26 28 29
May 17-22 29 26 26 28 25 29 35 35 36 35 29 26
M a y 24-29 29 25 26 25 27 29 25 26 33 27 29 29
June 1-5 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 29 26 25 25
June 7-12 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 27 25 25 25
June 14-19 20 20 18 19 18 20 20 19 19 IS 19 20
June 21-26 24 24 24 23 24 26 20 21 22 21 25 21 141
Appendix Table 38. Average Square Feet Per Week in Greenhouse and Tubed Tomato Displays, Twelve Setail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, Wine Weeks, 1954*
(To the nearest 0.25 square foot)
Store 1 2 3 Week Greenhouse Tubed Greenhouse Tubed Greenhouse Tubed (Square Feet)
1 2.50 7.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.00 2 4.00 3.00 9.00 6.00 4.00 5.50 3 3.00 2.75 20.00 8.00 5.00 7.50 4 6.50 8.00 12.50 18.50 8.00 7.50 5 10.75 5.50 32.75 20.50 7.25 10.00 6 9.00 5.50 19.00 14.00 3.50 10.50 7 8.00 5.00 30.50 9.50 7.00 7.00 8 12.00 9.00 12.00 14.00 9.00 7.00 9 9.50 9.00 11.00 19.50 10.00 8.00
Appendix Table 38. (Co:ntinued)
Store 4 5 6 Week Greenhouse Tubed Greenhouse Tubed Greenhouse Tubed (S ouar e Feet)
1 11.00 7.00 5.00 8 .00 6.00 6.00 2 20.50 8.00 6.50 7.50 15.00 10.00 3 11.50 11.00 9.00 11.50 17.25 10.75 4 14.50 22.00 7.50 8.25 25.00 24.50 5 17.50 22.75 6.50 5.00 18.00 19.75 6 21.00 14.50 8.00 5.00 16.00 11.00 7 19.00 16.50 5.00 4.50 15.00 12.00 8 15.00 15.00 3.50 2.50 14.00 10.00 9 23.00 14.00 9.00 8 .00 8.50 10.00 142
Appendix Table 38. (Continued)
Store 7 8 9 Week Greenhouse Tubed Greenhouse Tubed Greenhouse Tubed (Square Feet)
1 8.00 8.50 5.00 6.00 2.50 4.00 2 8.00 8.00 3.00 5.50 5.00 7.50 3 3.00 8.00 2.50 9.50 5.00 8.00 4 7.00 8.00 3.00 9.50 3.50 9.00 5 5.75 7.25 5.00 7.75 15.25 11.75 6 9.00 9.00 8.00 8.00 14.50 8.50 7 8.00 8.00 3.00 9.00 8.00 8.50 8 7.00 7.00 6.00 11.00 10.50 5.50 9 7.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 8.50 7.50
Appendix Table 38. (Continued)
Store 10 11 12 Week Greenhouse Tubed Greenhouse Tubed Greenhouse Tubed (Square Feet)
1 4.00 5.00 5.00 10.50 12.00 16.00 2 5.00 5.00 7.75 11.50 17.25 5.50 3 8.00 4.50 7.50 11.00 22.50 11.25 4 5.50 8.00 25.00 32.00 28 .50 17.50 5 8.00 4.75 33.50 14.75 25.75 8.00 6 7.25 5.50 43.50 19.75 29.00 14.25 7 9.00 6.00 37.00 25.00 23.75 8.75 8 8.50 4..50 31.75 25.25 14.50 7.50 9 4.75 11.25 17.75 23.25 13.50 10.00
♦Beginning with the week of April 26. Appendix Table 39. Spoilage Loss of Greenhouse Tomatoes, Twelve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-June 26, 1954
(In Pounds)
Week Store 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total (Pounds)
1 5.25 0.75 13.50 37.25 1.00 38 .00 4.00 99.75 6 13.00 5.75 9.50 - 3.50 0.25 5.00 1.00 23.75 61.75 11 14.67 4.00 1.25 1.33 12.75 48.50 146.75 21.00 15.00 265.25 12 6.33 4.00 1.50 3.00 5.25 18.00 14.25 21.50 16.00 89.83
Total 39.25 13.75 12.25 5.08 35.00 104.00 167.00 81.50 58.75 516.58
2 0.25 3.25 7.00 2.25 1.25 9.50 19.75 21.25 12.50 77.00 3 3.50 0.75 1.25 - 3.50 2.25 5.00 8.25 4.75 29.25 4 10.50 15.00 7.50 3.00 1.25 7.00 17.50 12.25 20.00 94.00 5 3.00 0.75 1.00 - 5.50 0.50 3.50 3.00 5.00 22.25 7 2.25 3.50 3.50 2.75 8.00 8.50 4.00 12.25 5.75 48.50 8 2.00 0.75 2.25 - 0.50 2.75 8.00 2.00 4.00 22.25 9 3.75 2.00 2.75 0.25 34.75 16.50 1.00 16.75 15.00 92.75 10 “ 7.75 13.75 2.25 1.00 9.50 10.75 12.00 12.00 69.00
Total 23.25 33.75 39.00 10.50 55.75 56.50 69.50 87.75 79.00 455.00 Appendix Table 40. Spoilage Loss of Tubed Tomatoes, Twelve Retail Food Stores, Columbus, Ohio, April 26-June 26, 1954
(in Number of Tubed)
Week Store 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Number of Tubes)
1 4.33 1.00 1.00 7.33 30.33 44.33 8.33 24.00 10.00 6 19.00 20.33 33.00 21.67 19.33 5.00 19.67 2.67 0.33 11 6.00 7.67 14.33 22.67 5.00 0.67 5.67 4.33 11.33 12 4.33 5.33 7.33 24.00 19.00 11.00 153.00 8.00 24.00
Total 33.67 34.33 55.67 75.67 73.66 61.00 186.67 39.00 45.66
2 1.00 25.67 23.33 16.33 10.33 28.00 26.00 5.00 42.00 3 10.67 11.67 5.00 3.33 54.33 4.00 5.67 5.67 5.00 4 28.67 35.67 33.00 26.00 28.00 12.33 14.00 3.00 10.33 5 2.33 5.67 13.00 16.33 20.33 4.00 12.00 3.00 3.00 7 0.67 13.67 12.67 15.33 26.00 10.67 16.33 18.00 30.00 8 6.67 10.67 11.33 15.00 21.33 4.33 13.67 3.00 4.67 9 8.00 17.33 13.00 21.33 3.67 16.00 23.67 2.00 4.67 10 12.00 3.00 4.00 36.67 51.00 29.00 14.67 10.67 17.00
Total 70.00 123.33 115.33 150.33 215.00 108.33 126.00 50.33 116.67 Appendix Table 41. Weekly Quantity of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Number of Eight Pound Equivalents, and Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Dollars* for Eleven Weeks Beginning v/ith Week Nearest April 15, Spring Crop, Cincinnati Marketing firm, Ohio, 1948-1950
Year 1948 1949 1950 Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price (eight pound units) (dollars) (eight pound units) (dollars) (eight pound units) (dollars) 1,561 3.01 1,120 2.80 946 2.93
2,675 2.67 1,754 2.29 1,408 2.78
2,784 2.71 3,280 2.34 1,958 2.89
2,671 2.72 4,160 2.54 4,373 2.41
5,735 2.58 6,735 2.59 4,571 2.05
9,905 2.41 14,238 2.40 8,553 2.14
16,101 2.16 18,491 1.94 13,834 1.98
23,441 2.20 33,052 1.72 19,823 2.06
31,328 2.04 37,156 1.39 37,084 2.34
50,345 1.45 42,102 1.58 39,274 2.27
53,696 1.43 45,511 1.89 48,819 2.38
*Adjusted by Wholesale Price Index. Appendix Table 42. Weekly Quantity of Greenhouse Tomatoes in Number of Eight Pound Equivalents, and Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Dollars* for Eleven Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest April 15, Spring Crop, Cincinnati Marketing Eirm, Ohio, 1951-1953
Year 1951 1952 1953 Quantity Price Quantity Price Quant ity Price (eight pound units) (dollars) (eight pound units) (dollars) (eight pound units) (dollars)
445 2.58 1,138 3.16 1,091 2.99
1,272 2.21 2,477 3.01 3,190 2.63
2,258 2.14 3,484 2.79 4,090 2.17
4,622 2.18 7,360 2.24 7,230 2.08
4,260 2.14 7,998 2.03 11,694 1.91
8,600 1.94 9,218 2.13 16,872 1.90
13,226 1.63 21,358 1.82 19,000 2.18
20,146 1.61 25,596 1.58 24,482 2.57
21,393 1.68 34,708 1.77 30,895 2.39
41,219 1.75 33,230 2.09 40,672 2.27
58,602 1.13 43,328 2.24 41,449 2.55
*Adjusted by ’Wholesale Price Index. Appendix Table 43. Weekly Quantity of Greenhouse Toms,toes in Number of light Pound Equivalents and Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Dollars*, for Thirteen Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest October 15, Pall Crop, Cincinnati Marketing Firm, Ohio, 1948-1950
Year 1948 1949 1950 Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price (eight pound units) (dollars) (eight pound units) (dollars) (eight pound units) (dollars) 135 1.76 401 1.75 937 1.97
505 1.85 563 1.98 1,728 1.66
1,220 1.90 1,082 1.95 2,042 1.55
1,118 1.90 1,249 2.30 909 1.84
1,235 2.11 1,591 2.21 755 2.15
1,228 2.23 1,054 2.20 658 2.27
1,074 2.19 904 2.20 735 2.11
1,308 2.13 1,012 2.22 1,519 2.05
971 2.03 1,105 2.20 1,338 3.14
913 2.15 1,562 2.18 1,219 2.31
674 2.24 1,225 2.27 828 2.52
539 2.30 1,046 2.10 459 2.42 147 524 2.60 577 2.08 381 2.22 *Adjusted by Wholesale Price Index. Appendix Table 44. Weekly Quantity of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Humber of Eight Pound Equivalents and Average Weekly Wholesale Price of Greenhouse Tomatoes, in Dollars*, for Thirteen Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest October 15, Pall Crop, Cincinnati Marketing Firm, Ohio, 1951-1953
Year 1951 1952 1953 Quantity Price ‘Quantity Price Quantity Price (eight pound units) (dollars) (eight pound units) (dollars) (eight pound units) (dollars) 1,114 1.72 856 1.96 1,279 1.75 1,801 1.57 1,855 1.78 2,180 1.54
1,234 1.44 1,729 1.76 1,902 1.54
1,290 1.42 1,814 1.83 1,962 1.73
2,204 1.51 2,623 1.82 2,731 1.79
2,446 1.60 1,942 1.80 2,920 1.89
2,372 1.61 1,843 1.79 2,558 2.16
1,980 1.83 2,003 1.85 2,322 2.25
1,759 2.12 1,249 2.12 1,644 2.33
819 2.40 1,581 2.41 941 2.63
983 2.67 2,388 2.37 1,539 2.73
820 1.76 1,019 2.17 ** ** 638 1.60 441 1.87 **** * Adjusted by Wholesale Price Index. ** No data available. 149
Appendix Table 45. Carlot Unloads of Tubed or Repack Tomatoes in Sixteen Major Cities, Eleven Weeks Beginning with the Week Nearest April 15, in the Spring, Thirteen Weeks Beginning with Week Nearest October 15, in the Fall, United States, 1951-1953
Season Soring______Fall 1951 1952 1953 1951 1952 1953 (Number of Carlots)
330 465 713 785 995 1,355
418 589 1,374 854 1,575 1,675
455 547 1,757 722 1,700 1,626
408 962 1,532 450 1,123 988
318 985 1,132 436 1,169 949
502 1,761 1,065 239 601 295
608 1,389 1,189 237 698 247
502 1,727 1,025 83 423 368
920 1,113 885 187 367 448
889 1,108 486 190 226 362
816 386 213 202 372 496
244 693 -
263 636 -
* Source: Daily Market News Reports, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Depart ment of Agriculture. 150
Appendix Table 46. Average Weekly Wholesale Price* Cartons of Ten Tubed or Repack Tomatoes, Eleven Weeks Beginning with Week learest April 15, Cincinnati, Ohio, Spring, 1948-1953
Year 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 (Dollars) 2.50 1.82 1.93 1.93 2.25 2.07
2.24 1.76 1.92 1.72 2.09 1.76
2.18 1.64 1.97 1.27 2.11 1.52
2.18 1.85 1.68 1.45 1.74 1.52
2.08 2.50 1.44 1.44 1.27 1.52
2.05 2.38 1.55 1.44 .98 1.85
2.05 1.80 1.73 1.32 1.06 2.07
1.99 1.62 2.13 1.14 1.00 2.47
1.84 1.60 2.37 1.21 1.14 2.43
1.69 1.57 3.48 1.21 1.38 2.24
1.59 1.62 2.39 1.43 1.38 1.77
♦Adjusted by Wholesale Price Index.
Source: Daily Market News Reports, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 151
Appendix Table 47. Average Weekly Wholesale Price* of Cartons of Ten Tubed or Repack Tomatoes, Thirteen Weeks Beginning with Week nearest October 15, Cincinnati, Ohio, Fall, 1948-1953
Year 1948 194-9 1950 1951 1952 1953 (Dollars)
1.41 1.48 '' 1.76 1.19 1.66 1.31
1.42 1.69 1.86 1.20 1.66 1.12
1.43 1.97 1.94 1.03 1.60 1.53
1.43 2.17 2.00 1.30 1.78 1.72
1.69 2.16 2.26 1.09 1.44 2.23
2.00 2.02 2.25 1.65 1.22 2.14
1.87 2.01 1.95 1.63 1.22 2.56
1.69 1.78 2.14 1.83 1.19 2.37
1.67 1.70 2.32 2.43 1.42 2.38
1.60 1.35 2.32 2.47 2.41 2.34
1.60 1.37 2.43 2.06 2.18 2.23
1.84 1.34 3.01 2.08 2.00 -
2.65 1.79 2.60 1.51 1.96 -
*Adjusted by Wholesale Price Index.
Source: Daily Market News Reports, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United Stages Department of Agriculture. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cravens, M. E., and Leed, T. W., unpublished data from a telephone survey conducted in June, 1953, to determine consumer's buying habits for fresh tomatoes for the Department of Agricultural Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Dominick, Bennett A., Jr., "Methods of Research, in Marketing," Paper Eo. 2, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, July, 1952.
Henderson, Peter L., "Methods of Research in Marketing," Paper Ho. 3, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Ithaca, Hew York, July, 1952.
Snedecor, George W., Statistical Methods, 4th edition, Iowa, State College Press, Ames, Iowa, 1946.
United States Bureau of Census, Census of Agriculture. Ohio, Volume V, Part I, Special Reports, Horticultural Specialties. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1950.
United States Department of Agriculture, Eruit and Vegetable Branch, Washington, D. C., "Daily Market Hews Reports" for Cleveland, Ohio, 1951 to 1954 and for Cincinnati, Ohio, 1948 to 1954.
152 autobiogeaphy
I, Theodore William Leed, was horn in Canton, Ohio, on Feb ruary 11, 1927. I received my secondary school education in the public schools of North Canton, Ohio. My undergraduate training was obtained at Ohio State University, from which I received the degree of Bachelor of Science in 1950. I specialized in Horticulture. In
1951, I received the decree of Master of Science. I specialized in
Agricultural Economics. Uhile in residence at Ohio State University
I acted in the capacity of research assistant to Professor Raymond C.
Scott from 1950 to 1951. in January, 195g, i received an appointment as Assistant to Professor Raymond C. Scott and later to Professor
M. E. Cravens. During my residence I specialized in Agricultural
Economics. I received an appointment as Instructor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and The Agricultural Extension Service at
Ohio State University in September, 1954. Since that time, I have been employed in this position.
153