Comparing the savings purchases--论文代写范文精选

  首先,这些措施并不占存款的成本。对于销售和批量采购成本包括储存和运输成本。在通用品牌的情况下,成本可能包括质量差异。出口的选择包括旅行成本以及潜在的商品质量差异。这些成本可能有不同的维度。下面的paper代写范文进行详述。

Abstract
  The relative distribution of expenditure shares does not track the relative potential saving. For example, economy generic brands offered the greatest potential for savings yet expenditure shares on these brands are relatively small. This should not be surprising: economy brands are probably of lower quality. Similarly, Tesco offers small potential savings, yet is very popular, reflecting the fact that consumers shop at Tesco for reasons other then savings.

  Comparison of actual savings
  In order to measure the actual, as apposed to potential, savings we present our computed measures in Table 9. These measures combine the potential savings, presented in Section 4.1, with the choices consumers make, presented in the previous section. The results suggest the savings from bulk purchasing are the largest, followed by sales, purchases of generics and shopping at Tesco. These results follow directly from what we saw in the previous sections. Bulk purchases offered the largest potential savings and made up a significant share of total expenditures. It is not totally surprising that the actual savings are therefore largest from buying in bulk. The figures in the table also demonstrate the importance of computing the savings measures and not just settling for the numbers in the previous sections. The potential savings from standard generic brands was relatively high, as was the share of expenditure on these brands. However, the actual savings are relatively low. This is driven by a negative correlation between potential savings and expenditure within categories: the categories where the expenditure share is higher are those where the potential savings are relatively low.

  A couple of caveats are in place in interpreting these numbers. First, these measures do not account for the costs of savings. In the case of sales and bulk purchases costs involve storage and transport cost. In the case of generic brands, the cost could include quality differences. And for outlet choice they include travel costs as well as potential quality differences between stores. These costs are likely different for the different dimensions and therefore in a way make the savings non-comparable. An additional caveat is that the savings measures are not orthogonal. For example, if larger sizes tend to be more on sale, the savings from them are potentially counted twice, both in bulk and in the sales measures (although note that in equation (4) we have controlled for sale when measuring the savings from bulk purchasing). In order to explore this further we examine in Table 10 the correlation between the various savings measures.

  As before, consumers who save by buying on sale also save by purchasing in bulk, with both decisions driven by storage costs. Households that save by purchasing on sale also save more when purchasing in Tesco. This is perhaps what we would expect: Tesco is not an ‘every day low price’ retailer but instead uses frequent in store price and quantity promotions more heavily. Consumers that save with the standard generic brand also save bulk discounts, but seem to save less by timing their purchases (i.e., buying on sale) and by switching stores. 

  The correlation between savings from economy and standard generics is also quite low, again suggesting they are close substitutes for each other. In order to further explore the correlation across savings measures we examine how savings vary with demographics, focusing on income and family composition. The figures below plot the coefficients and confidence intervals from a regression of the household saving from each channel on a categorical dummy for the income (figure 9) and family type (figure 10). The correlation for savings from bulk purchases and economy brands follow similar patterns: they decrease monotonically with income. Relatively, these dimensions seem to be used more by low income households. On the other hand, saving from sales, and to a lesser extent saving from Tesco, seem to be non-monotonic in income. Low income households do not seem to save, maybe because they are unable, and neither do high income households, maybe because it is not worth their time.

  The results for family types suggest that families with children save more through each of the savings channels than those without. The relative gains are highest for bulk discounting and sales. This makes sense: larger families have larger consumption needs and so they are able to take advantage of sales and larger packets, for example, even if their storage costs are high. Retired households tend to be less likely to save in all dimensions, except bulk purchases, relative to other household groups.

  Concluding Comments 
  We use a rich household-level data set to document purchasing patterns. We focus on four dimensions of consumer choice behaviour: purchase on sales, purchase in bulk, purchase of generic products and store choice. For each dimension we compute an estimate of how much the consumers save. Our findings suggest that all dimensions of choice yield significant and comparable savings. The data we used in this paper comes from the UK. An interesting question is whether the results we find are also present in other countries as well. We also have similar data from the US. Preliminary analysis suggests similar findings in the US, with some interesting differences. Sales and bulk purchases, and the savings they entail, seem to be more significant in the US. This should not be surprising. On average, US homes are larger and consumers tend to shop more with cars, so transport and storage costs are lower. As a result, in the US larger sizes are offered and purchased (for example, gallon size ice cream pack, which are quite popular in the US, are basically not available in the UK). Store brands are also different in the US. 

  They are a larger share of expenditure than the economy brands in the UK, but significantly less than the combined economy and standard brands in the UK. Overall, it seems to us store brands are less important in the US. As we discussed above, the savings from Walmart seem to be more significant than the savings from shopping at Tesco. In summary, it seems the conclusion – that savings from sales and bulk purchases are important – holds even stronger in the US. The statistics we offer measure the monetary savings from behaviour along various dimensions. The measures ignore the cost of substitution. When buying on sale or in bulk households incur a transportation cost and a storage cost, which we ignore. We also ignore the cost of travelling to various stores and the potentially lower quality of store brands. To fully account for these costs one needs to estimate a demand system. Based on our results we hope future work will go in this direction. Indeed, our measures suggest that the biases due to sales and bulk purchasing might be of the same (or even a greater) order of magnitude as substitution and outlet bias. Yet they have received much less attention. We second Triplett (2003) in suggesting that this is a fruitful area for future research.(paper代写)

  51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
  更多paper代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有paper代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X(paper代写)