MARKET RESEARCH

Report on chestnut ridge club case study

Bishal Agarwala
Introduction
An external research team was required to conduct a survey on behalf of Chestnut Ridge Country Club. The board of directors was
concerned with the declining membership application figures. The objectives of the report was
1) To determine peoples overall perceptions of the Club 2) to provide recommendations for ways to increase membership
Members of Alden, Chalet and Lancaster were surveyed in addition to Chestnut ridge as they would have appropriate knowledge of
the quality and type of service and facilities desired from a country club, in addition they could be potential Chestnut Ridge members.
A final sample size of 120 (34.4%) was obtained out of 348 questionnaires sent to members of all 4 clubs.
golf tennis pool dining social family friend Cordial prestige location

Mean 4.558333 4.108333 3.808333 3.716667 2.608333 2.666667 2.5 2.791667 2.95 3
Standard
Error 0.068799 0.092276 0.113078 0.106631 0.086397 0.094182 0.086966 0.093107 0.106412 0.105851
Z value 22.6505 12.01109 7.148487 6.720984 -4.53335 -3.53925 -5.7494 -2.23757 -0.46987 0
HYPOTHESIS TESTING:-

H0=µ≤3
H1=µ≥3
IMPORATANCE AND SATISFACTION CALCULATIONS
 golfs tenniss pools dinings socials familys friends cordials prestiges locations
Mean 4.133333 3.825 3.45 2.65 2.775 2.733333 2.416667 2.566667 2.6 2.966667
Standard Error 0.087714 0.104293 0.114036 0.102251 0.105495 0.103668 0.092872 0.098826 0.111897 0.103126
Z value 12.92078 7.91038 3.946123 -3.42296 -2.1328 -2.57232 -6.28108 -4.38481 -3.57471 -0.32323

golf tennis pool dining

Importance 4.5583333 4.108333 3.808333 3.716667
Satisfaction 4.1333333 3.825 3.45 2.65

We calculate the values of z by putting in the formula

where:
• x is a mean score to be standardized
• μ is the mean of the population
By calculating the values of Z, we see that golf, tennis, pool, and dining are significantly important
Diagram of the one tailed test:-

INTERPRETATION:-

The calculated value is greater than the critical

value of the Z so it falls in the critical region, we
reject the null hypothesis and we say that it is
not significantly important.

Now, doing the test to know the satisfaction

from the different clubs and finally recommending them to improve on the lacking fields:-

H0=to test whether the customers are significantly not satisfied

H1=to test whether the customers are significantly satisfied

Satisfaction Alden
cordial prestige location
golfs tennis pools dining’s socials families friends
s ’s s
Condition
t>1.701 3.51724 3.27586 2.65517 2.10344 2.58620 2.86206 1.8965 1.8965 3.1724
Mean 1.65517
1 2 2 8 7 9 5 5 1

Standar 0.1812 0.2006 0.2331

0.21415 0.22686 0.18082 0.18129 0.27861 0.26598 0.16665
d Error 9 4 4
-1.9069 -4.9451 -1.4851 -0.5185 6.0863 5.4995 -8.0696 0.7395
t 2.41522 1.21595
3 8 6 6 7 2 5 1

Satisfaction Chalet
prestige Location
golfs tennis pools dining’s socials families friends cordials
’s s
Condition
t>1.717 4.1739 3.6086 3.3913
Mean 2.34782 2.73913 2.43478 2.39130 2.56521 2.43478 2.43478
1 9 0

Standar 0.2146 0.2330 0.2647

0.19488 0.21975 0.18677 0.16320 0.18677 0.17587 0.18677
d Error 0 3 9
5.4700 2.6120 1.4777 -1.1871 -3.0261 -3.7295 -2.3278 -3.2136 -3.0261
t -3.3465
6 4 7 2 6 7 1 9 6

Satisfaction Lancaster
 prestige Location
golfs tennis pools dining’s socials families friends cordials
’s s
Condition
z>1.645 3.7777
Mean 4 4 3.33333 3.16666 3.05555 2.88888 3.16666 3.41666 3.27777
7

Standar 0.1126 0.1642 0.1741

0.19107 0.16666 0.18233 0.19014 0.17136 0.19669 0.15229
d Error 8 6 7
8.8741 6.0875 4.4656 -0.5843
Z 1.74455 1 0.30469 0.97259 2.11829 1.82400
2 9 3 5

Satisfaction Chestnut
Ridge
Prestige Location
golfs tenniss pools dinings socials familys friends cordials
s s
Condition
z>1.645 4.2812 3.8437
Mean 4.8125 2.59375 2.53125 2.46875 2.375 2.5 2.65625 2.8125
5 5

Standar 0.0832 0.1864 0.2422 0.17308 0.16791 0.16791 0.14721 0.16189 0.20384 0.22196
d Error 4 0 5 5 2 2 9 4 1 7
21.771 6.8734 3.4828 -2.3471 -2.7916 -3.1638 -4.2453 -3.0884 -1.6863 -0.8447
Z 9 8 7 1 5 7 8 4 6 2

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
 friend *
120 100.0% .0% 120 100.0%
age
RECOMMENDATIONS
➢ Alden should improve teniss, pool, dining facilities since the calculated value is less than the table value(1.701) in this case,
similarly,
➢ Chalet should improve the pool facilities
➢ Lancaster has a quite comfortable position with all its facilities
➢ Chestnut ridge should improve the dining facilities.

THE RADAR DIAGRAM IS GIVEN BELOW DEPICTING THE SAME:-

CHI SQUARE TEST:-

H0=Importance given to friends is independent of age
H1=importance given to friends is not independent of age
Critical value comes out to be 26.296
Calculated value is 29.402
Level of significance is 95%
 age * friend Cross tabulation

Age
1 2 3 4 5 Total
friend 1 Count 0 1 1 2
Expected Count .2 .5 .6 .5 .3 2.0

2 Count 3 17 25 24 15 84
Expected Count 6.3 19.6 23.1 22.4 12.6 84.0

3 Count 1 6 4 3 1 15
Expected Count 1.1 3.5 4.1 4.0 2.3 15.0

4 Count 1 1 3 4 1 10
Expected Count .8 2.3 2.8 2.7 1.5 10.0

5 Count 4 3 1 1 9
Expected Count .7 2.1 2.5 2.4 1.4 9.0

Total Count 9 28 33 32 18 120

Expected Count 9.0 28.0 33.0 32.0 18.0 120.0
 Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson
Chi- 29.402a 16 .021
Square
Likelihoo
24.421 16 .081
d Ratio
Linear-by-
Linear
8.232 1 .004
Associati
on
N of Valid
120
Cases

Here, the calculated value is greater than the critical value so we reject the null hypothesis (Ho) and we
can say that the importance given to friends is not independent of age

ANNOVA:-

HO=Means are same (average satisfaction derived from all the 11 components starting from golf to club
are same for both the sex)
H1=Means are not same (average satisfaction derived from all the 11 components starting from golf to
club are not same for both the sex)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Golfs Between Groups 4.402 1 4.402 4.926 .028
Within Groups 105.464 118 .894
Total 109.867 119

Tenniss Between Groups .021 1 .021 .016 .899

Within Groups 155.304 118 1.316
Total 155.325 119

Pools Between Groups 1.287 1 1.287 .824 .366

Within Groups 184.413 118 1.563
Total 185.700 119

Dinings Between Groups 10.137 1 10.137 8.595 .004

Within Groups 139.163 118 1.179
Total 149.300 119

Socials Between Groups 11.336 1 11.336 9.063 .003

Within Groups 147.589 118 1.251
Total 158.925 119
 Families Between Groups 12.172 1 12.172 10.165 .002
Within Groups 141.295 118 1.197
Total 153.467 119

Frnds Between Groups 8.932 1 8.932 9.227 .003

Within Groups 114.234 118 .968
Total 123.167 119

Cordials Between Groups 10.529 1 10.529 9.636 .002

Within Groups 128.938 118 1.093
Total 139.467 119

Prestiges Between Groups 14.208 1 14.208 10.186 .002

Within Groups 164.592 118 1.395
Total 178.800 119

Locations Between Groups .001 1 .001 .000 .983

Within Groups 151.866 118 1.287
Total 151.867 119

Club Between Groups 4.929 1 4.929 3.982 .048

Within Groups 146.063 118 1.238
Total 150.992 119

INTERPRETATION:-
HERE, if the significance values calculated in the table is greater than .05 then we cannot reject the
null hypothesis and the satisfaction derived by the components are significantly same for both the sex
and vice versa

SO, we can say that the satisfaction derived from golf, dining, social, families, friends, cordials,
prestige , club are significantly different

SATISFACTION LEVEL BETWEEN MALE AND

FEMALE
MEANS
MALE FEMALE
GOLF 4.31 3.92
DINING 2.92 2.33
SOCIAL 3.06 2.44
FAMILY 3.03 2.39
FRIENDS 2.67 2.12
CORDIAL 2.84 2.25
PRESTIGE 2.92 2.23
CLUB 2.78 2.37

Here, we analyze from the table and say that male is more satisfied than the female with facilities .

CLUSTER ANALYSIS:-
 Final Cluster Centers

Cluster

1 2 3

golf 4.68 4.51 4.44

tennis 4.36 4.10 3.75

pool 3.83 3.56 4.09

dining 3.89 3.78 3.38

golfs 4.34 4.66 3.16

tenniss 4.30 3.90 3.03

pools 4.19 3.54 2.25

dinings 2.62 3.10 2.12

age 3.98 2.12 3.38

sex .55 .63 .38

marital 2.53 2.61 2.31

dependent 2.21 1.76 2.06

income 3.87 2.39 3.66

 Number of Cases in each
Cluster

Cluster 1 47.000

2 41.000

3 32.000

Valid 120.000

Missing .000
 ANOVA

Cluster Error

Mean Square df Mean Square df

F Sig.

golf .630 2 .567 117 1.111 .333

tennis 3.565 2 .978 117 3.645 .029

pool 2.569 2 1.517 117 1.693 .188

dining 2.687 2 1.342 117 2.003 .140

golfs 21.938 2 .564 117 38.894 .000

tenniss 15.458 2 1.063 117 14.538 .000

pools 36.114 2 .970 117 37.237 .000

dinings 8.542 2 1.130 117 7.559 .001

age 38.549 2 .742 117 51.920 .000

sex .619 2 .245 117 2.529 .084

marital .833 2 1.165 117 .715 .491

dependent 2.329 2 .695 117 3.352 .038

income 26.691 2 .942 117 28.336 .000

The F tests should be used only for descriptive purposes because the clusters have been chosen to
maximize the differences among cases in different clusters. The observed significance levels are not
corrected for this and thus cannot be interpreted as tests of the hypothesis that the cluster means are equal.
 Cluster Cluster Cluste
1 2 r3 Total
47 41 32 120
% age 39.17 34.17 26.67
In the market, there are three segments; the 1st segment represents 39.17% of the total market, and similarly the 2nd
represents 34.17% and 3rd represents 26.67%.

TABLE SHOWING SIGNIFICANCE AND MEANS

Final Cluster Centers

Cluster
Annov 1 2 3
a
Signific
ance
4.3617 4.0975
3.75
tennis 0.029 tennis 02 61
4.3404 4.6585 3.156
golf(s) 0 golf(s) 26 37 25
tennis( tennis 4.2978 3.9024 3.031
s) 0 (s) 72 39 25
pool(s 4.1914 3.5365
2.25
pool(s) 0 ) 89 85
dining( dining 2.6170 3.0975
2.125
s) 0.001 (s) 21 61
3.9787 2.1219
3.375
age 0 age 23 51
depen depen 2.2127 1.7560 2.062
dent 0.038 dent 66 98 5
 incom 3.8723 2.3902 3.656
income 0 e 4 44 25

TABLE REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENT QUADRANTS IN WHICH THEY FALL RELATING TO THERE
RESPECTIVE MEAN VALUES

C-1 C-2 C-3

tennis Quite imp. Quite imp. Quite imp.
Somewhat
golf(s) quite satis. quite satis. satis.
Somewhat
tennis(s) quite satis. quite satis. satis.
pool(s) quite satis. quite satis. Not satis.
Somewhat Somewhat
dining(s) satis. satis. Not satis.
20- 36-50(MID
age 50-60 30(YOUNG) AGED)
depende
nt 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4
50000- 30000- 50000-
income 99,999 49,999 99,999

INTERPRETATION:-

From the above table we can infer that people having income level moderately high and of older age consider tenis
as quite important and are also quite satisfied with golf, tennis, pool and are somewhat satisfied with dining, so
chestnut ridge should work into improving its dining facilities so as to improve membership flows of these cluster of
people as they have a leading share in the market. They are also a major source of revenue generation for the club.
Similarly, Young generation people having moderate income are seen to similar importance and satisfaction level as
the older generation so the club is advised to improve its dining facilities to attract this cluster of people. Lastly, Mid
aged people having a moderately high income are somewhat satisfied with golf and tennis facilities and are not
satisfied with pool and dining facilities so the club is advised to improve these facilities to attract these cluster of
people .