AMB240- Marketing
Planning
And Management
Assessment Item Three: Reflective Case
Study
Prepared By:
Emily Harvey
N8833257
Tutor:
Steve Donaldson
Monday 6:30-8pm
Word Count: 1800
Executive Summary:
The following report outlines the outcomes and issues C’est Bon Bon faced
during the QUTopia market day stimulation. Included within this report are the
outcomes of C’est Bon Bon marketing objectives that revolved around market
share, customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, profit outcomes and sales total.
Upon analysis of these objectives it was revealed the C’est Bon Bon achieved a
high level of business success with most objectives being reached over greatly
exceeded. This success was further demonstrated in C’est Bon Bon market share
of 46.15% over two key competitors.
However, over the progression of the two-market day C’est Bon Bon was faced
with numerous issues, with the three that were deemed to have the highest
impact on C’est Bon Bon success being discussed. These included inconsistency
in price, product demand, and measurement of customer satisfaction.
Recommendations were then implement to provide appropriate solutions to
each key issues. For price inconsistency it was suggested that C’est Bon Bon
implement a price that reflected better against competitors. As price impact
demand it was suggested that a increase in price would have been an effective
tool of increasing the supply levels across the marketing day so that C’est Bon
Bon could compete for the entire hour. Finally to measure customer satisfaction
it was determined that electronic surveys are more successful then paper survey,
at recording honest feedback from customer, therefore C’est Bon Bon should
have implemented this.
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary: ......................................................................................................... 2
1. Summary Of Marketing Outcomes ........................................................................ 4
1.1 Marketing Objectives And Outcomes ........................................................................ 4
Table 1: The marketing objectives of the original plan and their outcomes ....................... 4
1.2 Sales And Promotion ....................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Sales and production outcomes from the market days. ........................................... 5
1.3 Final Profit and Loss Statement................................................................................... 6
Table 3: Profit and Loss Statement .............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Marketshare Calculation ................................................................................................ 7
Table 4: Market share analysis..................................................................................................... 7
2 Key Issues Arising From QUTopia Simulation ................................................... 8
Table 5: Summary of Marketing Management Issues .............................................................. 8
3 Problem Identification............................................................................................ 10
3.1 Price Inconsistency ............................................................................................................10
3.2 Product Demand .................................................................................................................12
3.3Customer Satisfaction ........................................................................................................12
4 Statement and Evaluation Of Alternatives ....................................................... 13
Table 6: Statement and evaluation of alternatives ................................................................13
5 Recommendations For The Future ..................................................................... 14
6 Appendices .................................................................................................................. 16
Table 7: Forecasted Profit and Loss...........................................................................................16
Table 8: Sale Forecast ..................................................................................................................17
Figure 9: Forecasted break even. .............................................................................................17
Figure 10: Actually break even results....................................................................................18
Figure 11: Business Performance Results ..............................................................................18
7. Reference ....................................................................................................................... 19
3
1. Summary Of Marketing Outcomes
1.1 Marketing Objectives And Outcomes
Table 1: The marketing objectives of the original plan and their outcomes
Objective
Market Share
Customer Loyalty
Measure
1. Gain at least 30%
market share
2. Achieve 50% of
customers returning at
Market Day 2
Customer Satisfaction
3. To achieve 50%
customer satisfaction
Profit Outcomes
4. To make at least $3,300
profit
Sales Total
5. To sell at least double
our break-even point
overall
4
Outcomes
This was achieved.
Market share was 45.71%.
This was not achieved.
C’est Bon Bon had 39.85%
returning customers at
Market Day 2.
According to the customer
surveys in week 1, C’est
Bon Bon had 100%
customer satisfaction.
C’est Bon Bon exceeded
this expectation, making
$5,058 profit overall.
C’est Bon Bon achieved
this objective (break-even
point 68 Macarons- 248
sold)
1.2 Sales And Promotion
Table 2: Sales and production outcomes from the market days.
($Q)
QUTopia
Sales and Production Table
Initial Inventory
No. of units
currency
248
01. Sales (single packs & double packs)
02. Sales price per unit
$30
03. Total number of units produced
171
04. Total number of units sold
171
07. Total turnover
$5,130
($Q)
QUTopia
No. of units
currency
01. Sales (Three Packs)
02. Sales price per unit
$26.67
03. Total number of units produced
24
04. Total number of units sold
24
07. Total turnover
$640
($Q)
QUTopia
No. of units
currency
01. Sales (More than 3 purchased & price
decrease)
02. Sales price per unit
$25.00
03. Total number of units produced
36
04. Total number of units sold
36
07. Total turnover
$900
($Q)
QUTopia
No. of units
currency
01. Sales (Price Decrease)
02. Sales price per unit
$20.00
03. Total number of units produced
17
04. Total number of units sold
17
07. Total turnover
$340
Average Price per unit
Stock Left on Hand
Grand Total Turnover
5
$28.67
0
$7,010
1.3
Final Profit and Loss Statement
Table 3: Profit and Loss Statement
CAPITAL
Amount of start-up capital
Amount of capital retained
$4,000
$2,100
PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT Marketday 1 and
2
Note
01. Income
02. Turnover (total sales)
03. Cost of Sales (Production)
04. Materials (eg. Product costs,
packaging)
05. Wages/
Salaries
06. Total
($AUD)
real
currency
($Q)
QUTopia
currency
Sub
Total
$ 7,010
McDonalds
supplied
our
products
for free
$
15
$
$ 7,010
-
$
1,300
$ 1,315
07. GROSS PROFIT
08. Distribution
09. Stall cost
10. Delivery Costs (e.g., postage)
11. Total
12. Expenses
13. Lecture promotion
14. Market research
15. Other expense 1 (eg. Stall
design/decoration)
16. Other expense 2 (eg. staff performance)
17. Total Expenses
18. NET PROFIT BEFORE TAX
Profitability of the
organisation
Calculated as net
profit/turnover
6
Total
$ 5,696
$
$
$
-
38
-
$ 600
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$ 600
$ 38
$ 5,058
72.15%
0.721469
1.4
Marketshare Calculation
Table 4: Market share analysis
Product
Turnover
(No. of
units
Profitability
Price (Av. Price
Profit ($)
sold)
(%)
per unit, $)
45.71
5,058.00
248
72.15%
28.27
4,870.00
31.76
2,980.00
108
61.19%
45.09
Berried
3,455.00
22.53
1,505.00
74
43.56%
46.69
Total industry
15,335.00
100.00
9,543.00
430
62.23%
35.66
C’est Bon Bon
(Total
Market
sales, $)
share (%)
7,010.00
Competitor 1:
Silver Spoon
Competitor 2:
Average industry
profitability
7
62.23%
2. Key Issues Arising From QUTopia Simulation
Table 5: Summary of Marketing Management Issues
Financial Situation






C’est Bon Bon’s forecasted profit and loss, shown in table 7 of
the appendix, predicted that C’est Bon Bon would make a total
profit of $2,785 resulting in a 55.92% profitability for the
company. However, as shown in the final profit and loss
statement in table 3 above, C’est Bon Bon exceeded this
forecast by actually making $5,058 across both market days
resulting in a 72.15% profit to the company.
C’est Bon Bon was marketed as a premium product which
allowed C’est Bon Bon to charge a substantial rate for the
macarons. By charging a premium price of between $20-30
C’est Bon Bon was able to surpass its sale objective of making
$3,300 by $1758.
C’est Bon Bon original forecast assumptions were constructed
around the information provided from previous business
results, also considering there was a much lower number of
specialty food competitors at market day 2014 compared to
previous years, resulting in C’est Bon Bon forecasting a market
share of 32% with 166 units being sold, as shown in table 8 of
the appendix. However, once again C’est Bon Bon exceed this
expectation with a total of 248 units being sold resulting in a
market share of 45.71%
C’est Bon Bon over budgeted in terms of the amount of money
that would be required to package our premium product as
well as develop our stall’s luxurious appearance, with only $53
being spent by C’est Bon Bon compared to the forecasted $95.
Due to this over budgeting and lower number of sales being
predicted, C’est Bon Bon was required to sell 71 units to break
even, as shown in figure 1 of the appendix. However, as seen in
figure 2 C’est Bon Bon’s actual break even point was 68 units
which was exceeded by C’est Bon Bon selling 248 units.
Positive: C’est Bon Bon had a
72.15% profit meaning little money
had been spent by group members.
Positive: charging a reasonable rate
that reflected our brands image of
being premium allowed for greater
amount of revenue being earned.
Neutral: Had C’est Bon Bon’s original
forecast been more accurate on the
amount of expected units being sold ,
C’est Bon Bon would have been able
to cater to this figure resulting in
product not selling out as quick.
Positive: As spending less actual
money on stall and product
miscellaneous decreased C’est Bon
Bon’s variable unit cost from the
forecasted $0.33cents a unit to
$0.06Cents a unit. Resulting in less
sales being needed to break even.
Positive: As C’est Bon Bon was able
to save $200 real money, that would
have been needed to purchase the
macarons had McDonalds not
sponsored.
As C’est Bon Bon’s product was sponsored entirely we weren’t
faced with any unexpected financial issues.
Company Analysis
8

Overall the performance of the C’est Bon Bon marketing team
was exceptional, with each member being approachable and
easy to work with. To aid continuous communication outside of
tutorial a Facebook group was created in which group
members could ask questions, help make group decisions as
well as providing reminders of tasks that needed completion.

Each individual pulled their weight when it came to fulfilling
their individual job descriptions. Additionally, team members
actively attended tutorials to have weekly face to face debriefs,
as well as offering assistant in filling out the weekly
worksheets.
Outcome was extremely positive due
to the hard work and continual
support that each individual
provided throughout the assessment.
Everyone respected one another’s
ideas and were always polite when
offering ways to improve team
members work, which resulted in the
complete lack of conflicts between
any members.
hhhh
Financial Situation

Finally a participative management style (Ryan, n.d.); which
encouraged all team member to be involved in decision
making, was utilized which ultimately lead to higher level of
productivity as well as increasing group morale.
Marketing System

Objectives focused mainly on attainable and realistic goals,
lacking specificity on how these goals were to be measured and
in what time frame they needed to be achieved.
Neutral: Recognized a need to
implement measurement tools after
market day 1

C’est Bon Bon underestimated the high level of sales that
macarons generate which lead to problems arising in regards to
the under catering for the demand.
Negative: Missed out on potential
sales and market share attainment
by not having product to sell.

C’est Bon Bon had an industry engagement with Kenmore
McDonalds, as a result of me being a long time employee.
McDonalds provided C’est Bon Bon with the 248 macarons sold
across the market days.
Positive: C’est Bon Bon team
members weren’t required to spend
money on the product.

There were major inconsistencies in the price during market day
one as team members allowed customers to haggle on the price.

Presentation and quality of the product as well as our market
stall being placed in a conveniently located section of the market
allowed for easy attainment of customer attention and business.

C’est Bon Bon poorly implemented the use of satisfaction
surveys at market day one with only 15 survey being completed.
Negative: Missed revenue, also
impacted on C’est Bon Bon selling
out so quickly.
Positive: Were able to attract and
retain interest.
Negative: Sample size of survey
respondents was not high enough to
determine
actually
customer
satisfaction.
Customer Analysis
Positive: As C’est Bon Bon was able
to successfully appeal to this large
target audience through the use of
feminine colours and packaging
style.

C’est Bon Bon target market was accurately recognized as
young female optimists between the ages of 18-25. This could
be due to the fact that 130 females whom fell mostly into the
18-25 age bracket were involved in the AMB240 stimulation,
compared to only 77 males.

After reviewing the Business performance results; as shown in
figure 3 of the appendix, C’est Bon Bon’s product was more
likely to be purchased for an emotional reason rather then the
social proposition that was predicted due to the attributes of
young optimists.
Positive: Although incorrectly
determined the emotional
proposition allowed for a greater
section of the market to be captured.
This emotional connection could
have been experienced due to
mothers day being after market day
one.

One of C’est Bon Bon’s biggest failures was the estimation of
customer demand; which greatly impacted our ability to satisfy
potential customers as well as actively compete for the entire
hour.
Negative: As an inaccurate customer
demand calculation was used C’est
Bon Bon failed to have the required
units to cater to the demand.
9
Competitor Analysis
Critically evaluate your identification of competitors, your competitive strategies and responses to
competitive activity.
Positive: The successful
 C’est Bon Bon accurately identified its key competitors prior to
identification of key competitors,
the commencement of market day one.
 As seen above in table 4, C’est Bon Bon performed exceptionally gave C’est Bon Bon a competitive
when compared against the key competitors, gaining 45.71% of advantage, as we were able to
analyze our competitors products
the market share with total profit double that of either
and prices which allowed for the
competitor.
implementation effective ways to
combat our competitors.
 C’est Bon Bon strengths over its’ competition was in the
packaging of the product. The enclosed packaging made the
macarons easily transportable; giving customers justification to Positive: C’est Bon Bon wasn’t
restricted to selling to customers
purchase the product to eat later in the day when they were
whom wanted to eat the product
feeling like something sweet. Futhermore, the feminine
then and there.
presentation of the product made it the perfect gift to buy for
mother’s day.
Negative: Competitors were able to
gain customers due to the enjoyment
 Unfortunately as product stock was limited C’est Bon Bon was
levels triggered by sampling the
unable to provide taste samples, which competitors were able
product. Further leading to positive
to distribute.
word of mouth being spread through
the market place.
3. Problem Identification
After completion of the above summary of Marketing Management Issues the
problems of price inconsistency, product demand and customer satisfaction
were determined to have had the most detrimental affect on C’est Bon Bon
Business performance.
3.1 Price Inconsistency
Inconsistency with prices, which predominantly affected market day one but also
appeared in market day two was a major issue identified to affect C’est Bon Bon
performance. Although C’est Bon Bon received the highest revenue then any
other store competing in market day one and two, due to fluctuation in price and
the implementation of new bundling packages the reported final revenue is just a
reflection on the total of sales C’est Bon Bon made which could have been higher
had C’est Bon Bon stuck to its forecasted pricing strategy. At market day one
C’est Bon Bon had a price lining strategy implemented that charged $30 for one
macaron, $60 for two macarons and $80 for three macarons (Solomon, Hughes,
Chitty, Marshall, & Stuart, 2012). However, as the $80 for three macarons was the
10
most economically valuable customers swarmed to this product resulting in C’est
Bon Bon selling out of bundles within 30 minutes of market day one beginning.
This issue was due to ideals surround decoy pricing in which the single and
double packs of macarons were; due to their prices being equivalent,
unfortunately used as a decoy to push the value proposition of the three packs of
macarons (Olyslager, n.d.). Had C’est Bon Bon recognised the benefit associated
with decoy pricing there could have been the implementation of larger bundle
packs as a way to increase profit margins.
Furthermore, C’est Bon Bon neglected to take down the price advertisement for
the bundles of three customers started enquiring if they could be bundle the
individual and two packs of macarons to equal a 3 pack and be charged the
advertised price of $80 instead of sticking to the pricing strategy and charging
$90. Wanting to uphold customer satisfaction the C’est Bon Bon team agreed
with the enquiring customer and only charged them $80 resulting in a loss of $10
every transaction.
Additionally, as customers increased the number of macarons purchased it was
implemented that the price to purchase was lowered with every customer whom
purchased six or more macarons were only charged $25 a macaron. After the
completion of market day one the team was able to reflect on this issue, which
lead to the realisation of the amount of money that had been lost due to
implementation of a price that hadn’t been properly analyses by the team.
Due to the correlation between customer satisfaction and price tolerance C’est
Bon Bon believed that due the high volume of sales and expected high level of
satisfaction on market day 1, removing the economically pleasing bundles of
three for $80, would still entice customers to purchase the product, due to
competitors prices being on average $15-$17 more expensive then C’est Bon Bon
(Anderson, 1996). Although this strategy was implemented for a majority of
sales there was still price inconsistency present with returning customers
wanting to buy the macarons for the same price as market day one, in which
11
some cases this desire was upheld with a individual customer buying 15
macarons for $25 each resulting in the lose of $75 in a single transaction.
3.2 Product Demand
C’est Bon Bon experienced an overwhelming demand for product which
unfortunately was not able to be met with the amount of product we had
available. Although C’est Bon Bon strategically positioned its price to be
reasonable amongst the prices charged by key competitors, our price
ultimately was too low which in an elastic demand environment resulted in
our stall being inundated with customers who were wanting something
sweet but didn’t want to pay the higher prices of our competitors.
However, as C’est Bon Bon ran out of product with half an hour left of market
day one trading hours we ultimately gave our competition an advantage as
consumers were forced to pay their high price to satisfy their wants and
needs of something sweet.
3.3 Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is an extremely important component of running a
successful business, as it is a mean of generating customer loyalty resulting in
the repurchase of products as well as spreading positive word of mouth
(Solomon et al., 2012). Although C’est Bon Bon acknowledged the importance of
customer satisfaction the implemented measurement tools of a paper survey to
determine customer satisfaction was not effective in recording these outcomes.
The customer satisfaction of 100% given by 15 customers surveyed over market
day one was not indicative of actual customer satisfaction due to incredibly small
sample size. Furthermore there was a potential in for a bias to present in
respondents answers as the survey were required to be filled out in front of team
members with the completed survey being handed back to a team member who
could easily review the answers given (textbook). Over market day two C’est Bon
Bon assumed customer satisfaction was achieved if customers returned, with
12
every customer being asked if they had purchased our product on market day
one.
Through poorly measuring customer satisfaction C’est Bon Bon missed out on
pinpointing attributes of our product or service that weren’t favourable amongst
customers. By having dissatisfaction highlighted C’est Bon Bon could have
actively work to eradicate issues put forward; which could have been beneficial
to implement on market day 2 to satisfy the 80 new customers that approached
C’est Bon Bon, As shown in figure 4 of the appendix.
4. Statement and Evaluation Of Alternatives
Table 6: Statement and evaluation of alternatives
Problem
Bundle prices
were to
economically
pleasing to
consumer
Advertising of
lower price
bundles.
Allowed some
consumers to pay
the same price as
market day one
Ran out of
product on both
market days
Customer
satisfaction was
not measured
affectively.
Team members
forgot to hand out
surveys
13
Solution
Increase price to reflect
that of competitors
Had a variety of
interchangeable pricing
signage that could be
changed to reflect the
demand of the market.
Explain to customer that
due to increasing demand
we are unable to sell
product at last weeks
lower price.
Approached another
McDonalds franchise to
enquire if they would
also be able to sponsor
macarons.
Purchase macarons at a
discounted price from
McDonalds
Implemented an easy to
fill out electronic survey
that once submitted
couldn’t be viewed by a
C’est Bon Bon team
member.
Posted a electronic
survey onto the QUTopia
Facebook page.
Positive
Demand for product wouldn’t
have been so intense resulting
in C’est Bon Bon being able
to compete for the full hour of
trading.
Consumers wouldn’t have
been made aware of cheaper
bundle options resulting in
higher profit margins being
achieved.
Increase in profit margin
Negative
C’est Bon Bon wouldn’t have been viewed
as the “next best” alternative to our
competitors if we had similar pricing,
causing customer to justify spending
money at our competitors stalls.
Price fluctuation may have discouraged
customer to purchase the product when it
was at a high price with hopes that the
price would lower again when the end of
trading approached.
Potential loss of customer return and
satisfaction as customers wouldn’t be
interested in repurchasing a product at a
higher price.
Would have increased the
number of units we had
available, which hopefully
would have been able to cater
for the demand.
Purchasing enough macarons to cater for
the demand would have impacted C’est
Bon Bon level of profitability.
Would have decreased bias as
customers could give honest
opinions without feeling
awkward about giving their
easily identifiable raw data to
a team member.
Would have gained feedback
from customers that were
missed at market day.
Impacts on the shopping experience by
having to answer questions about a product
that has just been purchased.
Unable to facilitate who responded to the
survey, which may have resulted in people
filling out the survey as a joke, or to give
false data. Also less likely for survey to be
completed as there is no obligation.
5. Recommendations For The Future
The following section looks at the appropriate solutions in which I believe C’est
Bon Bon could easily implement to manage the key problems that arose during
market day; which included bundle pricing being to economically pleasing to
consumer, advertising the price of past deals as well as selling product at a price
inconsistent with the teams implemented pricing strategy and poor
measurements of consumer satisfaction.
C’est Bon Bon implemented a market penetration price strategy that is
characterised as a product of high quality being kept at a low price to drive out
competitors (Williams, 2010). However, C’est Bon Bon should have reviewed the
prices of key competitors before the commencement of market day one to
evaluate if their price reflected similarly. Had this been implemented C’est Bon
Bon would have been able to recognise that on average we were charging $15$17 less then our competitors which could have been justification for C’est Bon
Bon to marginally increase our product price by as much as $10 as a way of still
being the cheaper alternative, but also as a way of reflecting C’est Bon Bon
premium brand image by being priced at a value that wasn’t perceived as the
cheaper alternative impacting on consumer perception of the quality of our
product.
C’est Bon Bon should have focused more research on demand-based pricing
strategies, with a further analysis into the yield management method that aims
to predict the customers who will pay full rate, those who only want to pay
discounted rates allowing a percentage of capacity for each group being
established (Solomon et al., 2012).
For market day two C’est Bon Bon should have polity explained to customer that
due to increasing demand for our delicious product we are unable to charge the
cheaper prices of market day one. Although this would have impacted returning
14
customers decision to not purchase the product the large number of new
customers that visited the store in market day two would have subsidized the
loss resulting in a higher profit margin being gained rather then selling the
product at a lower price to satisfy existing customers.
Alternatively, C’est Bon Bon should have had numerous pricing signs prepared
so that once a particular product sold out they weren’t advertising it. As C’est
Bon Bon had no other pricing advertisements at market day one they were
required to keep up the sign that read three for $80, resulting in customers
making bundles of three out of the remaining macarons. Had C’est Bon Bon
taken down the sign that displayed three for $80 and replaced it with a sign that
only had the two remaining products price on customers wouldn’t have been
made aware of the previously cheaper price and would not have enquired about
purchasing the remain product at the lower price. Furthermore, C’est Bon Bon
should have previously discussed at what rate of selling would we increase or
decrease the price so that an evaluated answer could have been decided on with
the corresponding price values being prepared to use if required.
Due to research findings stating that electronically generated surveys generate
both lengthier and self-disclosing comments then paper based survey, C’est Bon
Bon should have implemented the use of electronic surveys that had three easy
to answer questions as a way to measure customer satisfaction. Through this
implementation team members wouldn’t have to spend valuable time; which
otherwise could have used to attract new customers, waiting for customers to fill
out written surveys. Furthermore, customer bias would have decreased as
customers could give honest opinions without feeling awkward about giving
their easily identifiable raw data to a team member, rather they hit the submit
button which resets the survey to being blank before giving the I-pad back to a
team member.
Additionally a secondary survey should have been implanted to survey returning
customers on market day two, as this would have given better indication of
customer satisfaction levels with existing customers being able to actually
15
explain what they enjoyed about the product after experiencing it at market day
one.
6. Appendices
Table 7: Forecasted Profit and Loss
QUTopia Profit and Loss Statement
Company Name:
Industry:
C'est Bon Bon
G4129 Other Specialised Food Retailing
CAPITAL
Amount of start-up capital
Amount of capital retained
$4,000
$1,900
PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT Marketday 1 and 2
Notes
($AUD)
real
currency
($Q)
QUTopia
currency
01. Income
02. Turnover (total sales)
Sub
Total
$ 4,980
03. Cost of Sales (Production)
04. Materials (eg. Product costs, packaging)
05. Wages/ Salaries
$
75*
$ 4,980
$
$ 1,300
06. Total [4+5]
$1,375
07. GROSS PROFIT [2-6]
08. Distribution
09. Stall cost
10. Delivery Costs (e.g., postage)
11. Total [9+10]
12. Expenses
13. Lecture promotion
14. Market research
15. Other expense 1 (eg. Stall design/decoration)
16. Other expense 2 (eg. staff performance bonus, uniforms etc.)
17. Total Expenses [13+14+15+16]
18. NET PROFIT BEFORE TAX
[7-11-17]
Profitability of the
organisation
Calulcated as net profit/turnover [18 / 2]
16
Total
$ 3,605
$
$
-
600
-
$
$
20*
$
-
$600
$ 200
$
$
$
$220
$ 2,785
55.92%
0.559237
Table 8: Sale Forecast
Size of the total QUTopia market:
Target Market (b):
241
130
Product frequency per person (c):
4 (2 each market day)
Estimated market share from your research (d):
32%
Sales projection: (b) x (c) x (d)
166
Figure 1: Forecasted break even.
17
Figure 2: Actually break even results
Figure 3: Business Performance Results
18
Figure 4: Rates of customer return and new customers.
7. Reference
Anderson, E. (1996) Customer satisfaction and price tolerance. Retrieved May 30,
from
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/47216/11002
_2004_Article_BF00435742.pdf?sequence=1
Olyslager, P. (n.d.) The decoy effect in price tables. Retrieved May 27, 2014, from
http://www.paulolyslager.com/decoy-effect-price-tables/
Ryan, J. (n.d.) Democratic leadership style. Retrieved May 27, 2014, from
http://www.academia.edu/1320375/Democratic_Leadership_Style
Solomon, M., Hughes, A., Chitty, B., Marshall, G., Stuart, E. (2012) Marketing: Real
people, real choices (3rd Ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
Williams, P. (2010) A word about price strategy. Retrieved May 27, 2014, from
http://www.aviationbusinessconsultants.com/2010/02/a-word-about-pricingstrategy-for-aviation-products/
19