Impact of Economic Variables on Demand for Schmeckt Gut's Energy Bar
Verified
Added on  2023/06/10
|21
|5472
|258
AI Summary
This study analyzes the impact of economic variables on the demand for Schmeckt Gut's energy bar. Using multiple regression analysis, the paper presents recommendations for the management of the company.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
1 ECONOMICS PRINCIPLE AND DECISION MAKING
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
2 Executive summary Decision making is crucial for any kind of business and market analysis works as a resource for the process.Schmeckt Gut carries out market analysis and collects data based on the demand for the product. The study in the paper uses the multiple regression analysis to find out the effect of the dependent variable on the dependent variable. Furthermore, based on the studyandtherelationshipbetweentheeconomicvariables,thepaperalsopresents recommendations for the management of Schmeckt Gut.
3 Table of contents 1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................4 2.0 Methods................................................................................................................................4 3.0 Discussions...........................................................................................................................4 3.1 Relationship between the different projections....................................................................4 3.2 Impact on the demand for the product of the company.......................................................5 3.3 Recommendations................................................................................................................7 4.0 Conclusion............................................................................................................................9 Reference..................................................................................................................................10
4 1.0 Introduction Decision making is one of the important functions of any organisation. The decision making becomes more crucial in the case of B2C businesses where the customers are the consumers of the end products. There are few resources which are required for a company to make decisions such as market analysis, survey and many more. In this study, Schmeckt Gut is a company that wants to introduce its energy bar product in the market. Using its marketing analysis result, this paper aims to discuss the impacts of the different economic variable on the demand of the product. Based on that, the study carried out in the paper also presents recommendations based on different situations. 2.0 Methods The study carried out in the paper uses the data given by the marketing department of Schmeckt Gut and the secondary data and information collected from other similar papers. A quantitative multiple regression analysis has been carried out in the paper to arrive at the result which shows the sensitivity of the demand of the product to the changes in the external scenarios. 3.0 Discussions 3.1 Relationship between the different projections The income growth and inflation are two of the most important macroeconomic indicators that measure the performance of an economy. On the other hand, a tariff rate is a tool used by the government in order to regulate the domestic market.Karlan (2017)stated that, lowered tariff rate makes it easier for the foreign company to invade a domestic market which in turn becomes a trouble for the indigenous businesses. However, all the three values are dependent on each other. The direct relationship between the income growth and the inflation rate is justified by the theory of demand and supply. As the income grows at the rate of 1%, the consumers will demand more products from the market and hence the demand curve will shift rightward leading to an increase in the price of that specific product (Laibson & List, 2015). Now this increase in the price of the product, over time, contributes to the degrading purchasing power of the consumer and hence the inflation. Corresponding to a 1% increase in the income can result in either of inflation rate as
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
5 the amount of increase in the price level will depend on the elasticity of that specific product. If the income elasticity of the demand for a specific product is less than one then the percentage of increase in price will be less than the percentage increase in the income (Schansberg, 2016). Figure 1: The relationship of income and inflation (Source:Wu & Cheng, 2015) Again, from the perspective of the economy as a whole and considering all the products of the market, the increase in the income shifts the aggregate demand to the right side causing an increase in the price level. Consequently the inflation level increases with the increase in the income.Bober (2016)commented that, increase in income not only increases the demand for a single product of the market, but it affects the overall basket of goods and services. Again, the aggregate demand can also explain the relationship between the inflation rate of the market and the tariff as well. High tariff rate protects the domestic companies from the invasion of the foreign businesses(Kagundu, & Ross, 2015). Therefore, domestic companies get the opportunity to make the most of the increased income of the customers in the market. The customers with their higher income will demand more domestic goods than the foreign
6 goods. Due to a high Net export component of the aggregate demand, the curve will shift to the right increasing overall price of the goods and the services of the economy (Friedman, 2018). That means a 10% tariff rate can increase the inflation of the economy to 5%. Figure 2: The changes in the aggregate demand and price (Source:Kagundu, & Ross, 2015) However, the aggregate supply of the economy is not directly related to the changes in the income(Wu & Cheng, 2015). However, there exists a relation between the unemployment rate and the wage rates in the labour market. Thus, the Phillips curve depicts the relationship between the level of the unemployment rate and the inflation in the economy.Walstad & Miller (2016)commented that, the demand curve in the labour market is downward sloping and hence the rightward shift in the demand curve corresponding to increase in the employment opportunity increases the equilibrium wage rate of the market(Hussen, 2018).
7 Figure 3: Phillips curve (Source:Hussen, 2018) Lastly, the laffers curve shows the relationship between the amount of tax rate and total tax revenue collected by the government.Gwartney, Stroup, Lee, Ferrarini & Calhoun (2016) noted that, the government can increase the tax rate in order to increase the overall tax revenue of the state. However, there is a limitation to the increase in the tax rate, as with higher taxes, people will be discouraged to work. After a specific point, a higher tax reduces the tax revenue of the government(Aljamal, Cader, Chiemeke & Speece, 2015). This is due to the fact that, with high taxes the production of the economies goes down resulting in deflation and stagnation in the economy.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
8 Figure 4: The laffer curve (Source:Olsen, 2017) 3.2 Impact on the demand for the product of the company Part 1: Log transformation Scenario 1: 1% income increase, 2% inflation and 7.5% tariff increase SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R0.921985 R Square0.850056 Adjusted R Square0.77784 Standard Error0.085691 Observations21 ANOVA dfSSMSFSignificance F Regression30.7493150.24977251.022371.03E-08 Residual180.1321740.007343 Total210.881489 CoefficientsStandard Errort StatP-valueLower 95%Upper 95%Lower 95.0%Upper 95.0% Intercept-9.850291.442556-6.828362.16E-06-12.881-6.81959-12.881-6.81959 Log real income1.5719070.15592910.080957.89E-091.2443141.8995011.2443141.899501 Log tariff-0.506880.08357-6.065399.86E-06-0.68245-0.33131-0.68245-0.33131 Log number of stores0065535#NUM!0000
9 Table 1: The regression analysis of scenario 1 In this case the r square value is 0.85 which is a good fit and the variable of real income has the most influence on the demand for the product. Scenario 2: 2% income increase 3% inflation and 5% tariff increase SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R0.915519119 R Square0.838175258 Adjusted R Square0.764639176 Standard Error0.089021451 Observations21 ANOVA dfSSMSFSignificance F Regression30.7388423160.24628077246.615722852.04509E-08 Residual180.1426467390.007924819 Total210.881489055 CoefficientsStandard Errort StatP-valueLower 95%Upper 95%Lower 95.0%Upper 95.0% Intercept-9.6949710051.493158038-6.492930264.17272E-06-12.83197963-6.55796238-12.83197963-6.55796238 X Variable 11.5470358370.1605394059.6364866651.57412E-081.2097550631.8843166111.2097550631.884316611 X Variable 2-0.4966484820.086762919-5.7242020521.99222E-05-0.678930611-0.314366352-0.678930611-0.314366352 X Variable 30065535#NUM!0000 Table 2: The regression analysis for the scenario 2 This scenario has the goodness of fit of 0.83 which is a good measure and the real income has the huge influence over the demand for the product. Scenario 3: 5% income increase, 5% inflation and 5% tariff increase SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R0.933159874 R Square0.87078735 Adjusted R Square0.800874833 Standard Error0.079547169 Observations21 ANOVA dfSSMSFSignificance F Regression30.7675895180.25586317360.652623092.73954E-09 Residual180.1138995370.006327752 Total210.881489055 CoefficientsStandard Errort StatP-valueLower 95%Upper 95%Lower 95.0%Upper 95.0% Intercept-10.288138551.362793123-7.5493032495.54069E-07-13.15126065-7.425016447-13.15126065-7.425016447 X Variable 11.6141910230.14685467110.99175812.04488E-091.3056608081.9227212391.3056608081.922721239 X Variable 2-0.5127156720.077528115-6.6132869463.29004E-06-0.675596198-0.349835147-0.675596198-0.349835147 X Variable 30065535#NUM!0000
10 Figure 3: The regression analysis for the scenario 3 The r squared value for this analysis is 0.87 which says that the independent variables explains 87% of the changes in the demand for the product. Scenario 4: 5% income increase, 5% inflation and 0% tariff change SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R0.921984758 R Square0.850055895 Adjusted R Square0.777839883 Standard Error0.085691335 Observations21 ANOVA dfSSMSFSignificance F Regression30.7493149670.24977165651.022366151.03228E-08 Residual180.1321740880.007343005 Total210.881489055 CoefficientsStandard Errort StatP-valueLower 95%Upper 95%Lower 95.0%Upper 95.0% Intercept-9.9024313611.447600385-6.8405835372.11151E-06-12.94372691-6.861135812-12.94372691-6.861135812 X Variable 11.5719073560.15592853810.080947197.88772E-091.2443136551.8995010581.2443136551.899501058 X Variable 2-0.506881510.083569536-6.0653861689.86019E-06-0.68245459-0.331308429-0.68245459-0.331308429 X Variable 30065535#NUM!0000 Table 4: The regression analysis for the scenario 4 The R squared value of this analysis is 0.85 and the impact of the real income is the most on the demand for the product. Part 2: The regression analysis is presented below: SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.9147 57 R Square 0.8367 8 Adjusted R Square 0.8306 59 Standard Error 0.0848 17 Observation s84 ANOVA
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
11 dfSSMSF Signific ance F Regression32.950449 0.983 483 136.7 118 2.14E- 31 Residual800.575507 0.007 194 Total833.525956 Coeffic ients Standard Errort Stat P- value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept - 9.5375 90.721743 - 13.21 47 8.24 E-22 - 10.9739 - 8.1012 7 - 10.9739 - 8.10127 Log real income 1.5471 330.076553 20.21 008 3.61 E-33 1.39478 8 1.6994 77 1.39478 8 1.69947 7 Log tariff - 0.4936 10.041094 - 12.01 19 1.36 E-19 - 0.57539 - 0.4118 3 - 0.57539 - 0.41183 Log number of stores - 0.0452 90.054189 - 0.835 71 0.405 809 - 0.15313 0.0625 54 - 0.15313 0.06255 4 Table 1: The regression analysis (Source: Developed by the learner) The regression analysis shows how the independent variables explain and influences the changes in the dependant variableOliver & Lundquist,2017). In this case, the dependant variable is the Log Demand which depends on the value of the variables such as Log real income, Log tariff and log number of stores. The R square value of the analysis is 0.83 which means the independent variables explains 83% of the changes in the demand for the product (Olsen, 2017). The result shows that, income has the coefficient of 1.54 which means 1 unit change in the income the demand increases by 1.54 Unit. Again the log tariff has the coefficient of -0.49 which means 1 unit increase in the tariff decerases the demand by 0.49 units. Lastly, The number of stores have the least significant impact on the demand for the product of Schmeckt Gut. Scenario 1: 1% income increase, 2% inflation and 7.5% tariff increase Income increases only by 1% and hence increase in demand is low. Given the high tariff the supply is also low in this case.
12 Figure 5: Change in price for scenario 1 Scenario 2: 2% income increase 3% inflation and 5% tariff increase In this scenario, the gap between the income increase and inflation is same however the tariff has reduced resulting in more stores in the market. Therefore the price mostly remains the same and the quantity increases. Figure 6: Change in price for scenario 2 Scenario 3: 5% income increase, 5% inflation and 5% tariff increase In this scenario the real income increase is marginal and the increase in supply is more due to the reduction in tariff. Thus the price reduces.
13 Figure 7: The change in price in scenario 3 Scenario 4: 5% income increase, 5% inflation and 0% tariff change The scenario 4 shows the free trade case where the real income is same as before. The tariff is low and hence the supply is the maximum leading to the most reduction in price and hence increases in real income. Figure 8: The change in price in case of scenario 4 3.3 Recommendations Scenario 1: Income growth 1%, Inflation 2% and tariff 7.5% In this case the income growth rate is less than the inflation rate of the economy. That means the change in the income will hardly have any effect on the demand for the energy bar of Schmeckt Gut. Apart from that the demand for the product will also below in this case (Friedman, 2017). For this situation it is recommended for the management of Schmeckt Gut to reduce the prices of the products. The reduced prices of the product will increase the real
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
14 income of the consumer and hence the demand for the product will start to rise. Thus, in this case, a competitive price strategy for the products will be useful. Scenario 2: Income growth 2% inflation 3% and tariff 5% In this scenario the income growth of the consumer is more than the inflation rate of the economy. That means the real income increase is positive, which can have a positive impact on the demand for the product (Vasigh & Fleming, 2016). The tariff in this case is also low which can have a positive impact on the demand for the product. In this scenario it is recommended for the management of the company is to increase the number of stores in the market. The increased number of stores will help in the promotion of the products and hence the demand will increase. The above regression analysis also shows that the number of stores positively influences the demand for the energy bars of Schmeckt Gut. Scenario 3: Income growth 5%, inflation 5% and free trade The free trade in this case ensures the demand for the product is the highest. The regression analysis shows that the demand of the product is negatively related to the tariff rate. In this case the low tariff rate or the free trade paves the way for a high demand for the product. In addition to that, in this scenario, the income growth rate is also more than the inflation rate in the economy (Stiglitz & Rosengard, 2015). That means the real income of the consumers of the market is also very high. Therefore, it is recommended for the management of Schmeckt Gut to use a premium price for the energy bars of the company. It needs to be that due to the fact that the energy bar is inelastic, the higher price will enable the company to earn increased revenue. Scenario 4: Income growth 5%, inflation 5% and tariff 5 % This is a situation where the inflation of the economy is similar to the increase in the wage of the consumers of the market. Therefore, the real income of the consumers remains intact over the time. Moreover the moderate tariff rate on the import of the energy bar also justifies the lowdemandfortheproduct.Therefore,inthisscenario,itisrecommendedforthe management of Schmeckt Gut to keep constant prices for the energy bar product of the company for a long period of time. Any kinds of increase in price may result in loss of customer or any kind of decrease in price may result in a decrease in the revenue of the company.
15 4.0 Conclusion Therefore the paper carries out the study regarding the variables of the model. It shows that, theories of demand and supply, aggregate demand justifies the changes in the income and the prices of the products in the economy. The regression analysis carried out in the paper also shows that, while the higher number of stores may increase the demand for the product, the increase in the tariff rate would result in the decline in the demand for the product. Lastly the paper concludes with the recommendations based on the different situations.
16 Reference Aljamal, A., Cader, H., Chiemeke, C., & Speece, M. (2015). Empirical assessment of e- learningonperformanceinprinciplesofeconomics.InternationalReviewof Economics Education,18, 37-48. Bober, S. (2016).Alternative principles of economics. Routledge. Friedman, G. (2018). Book Review: What Every Economics Student Needs to Know, and Doesn’t Get in the Usual Principles Text. Friedman, M. (2017).Price theory. Routledge. Gwartney, J. D., Stroup, R., Lee, D., FERRARINI, T. H., & Calhoun, J. (2016). Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know about Wealth and Prosperity (2016) Hussen, A. (2018).Principles of environmental economics and sustainability: an integrated economic and ecological approach. Routledge. Kagundu, P., & Ross, G. (2015). The impact of question order on multiple choice exams on student performance in an unconventional introductory economics course.Journal for Economic Educators, (1), 19-36. Karlan, D. S. (2017). DP12015 Survivor: Three Principles of Economics Lessons as Taught by a Reality Television Show. Laibson, D., & List, J. A. (2015). Principles of (behavioral) economics.American Economic Review,105(5), 385-90. Oliver, H. V., & Lundquist, K. M. (2017). Evaluation of the Prerequisite Requirements in Principles of Economics and Student Success at Linfield College. Olsen, J. A. (2017).Principles in health economics and policy. Oxford University Press. Schansberg, D. E. (2016). TEACHING MICRO AND MACRO IN ALL PRINCIPLES COURSES.Journal of Economics & Economic Education Research,17(1). Stiglitz,J.E.,&Rosengard,J.K.(2015).Economicsofthepublicsector:Fourth international student edition. WW Norton & Company.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
17 Vasigh, B., & Fleming, K. (2016).Introduction to air transport economics: from theory to applications. Routledge. Walstad, W. B., & Miller, L. A. (2016). What's in a grade? Grading policies and practices in principles of economics.The Journal of Economic Education,47(4), 338-350. Wu, R., & Cheng, X. (2015). Grades Difference Before and After Using An Online Interactive Homework System--A Case Study in Teaching Economics At Alabama State University.Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research,16(3), 253.
18 Appendix 1)The log transformation Ann ual aver age dem and of ener gy bars per pers on Aver age inco me per pers on Tari ff rate on imp orts of ener gy bars Num ber of stor es whe re ener gy bars are offer ed Infla tion Incra sed inco me Real inco me Ne w tari ff Num ber of stor es Log dema nd Log real inco me Log tariff Log num ber of store s 106 1550 05152% 1565 5 1534 8.04 5.3 7515 4.663 439 9.638 743 1.681 759 2.708 05 90 1581 05152% 1596 8.1 1565 5 5.3 7515 4.499 81 9.658 546 1.681 759 2.708 05 93 1639 55152% 1655 9 1623 4.26 5.3 7515 4.532 599 9.694 879 1.681 759 2.708 05 92 1688 75152% 1705 5.9 1672 1.44 5.3 7515 4.521 789 9.724 447 1.681 759 2.708 05 91 1749 55152% 1767 0 1732 3.48 5.3 7515 4.510 86 9.759 818 1.681 759 2.708 05 110 1828 25162% 1846 4.8 1810 2.76 5.3 7515 4.700 48 9.803 82 1.681 759 2.708 05 109 1901 35162% 1920 3.1 1882 6.6 5.3 7515 4.691 348 9.843 026 1.681 759 2.708 05 122 1950 85162% 1970 3.1 1931 6.75 5.3 7515 4.804 021 9.868 728 1.681 759 2.708 05 82 1989 810162% 2009 7 1970 2.92 10. 7515 4.406 719 9.888 522 2.374 906 2.708 05 84 2027 610162% 2047 8.8 2007 7.22 10. 7515 4.430 817 9.907 341 2.374 906 2.708 05 102 2070 210172% 2090 9 2049 9.04 10. 7515 4.624 973 9.928 133 2.374 906 2.708 05 92 2155 010172% 2176 5.5 2133 8.73 10. 7515 4.521 789 9.968 279 2.374 906 2.708 05 115 2219 710202% 2241 9 2197 9.38 10. 7515 4.744 932 9.997 86 2.374 906 2.708 05 112 2233 010202% 2255 3.3 2211 1.08 10. 7515 4.718 499 10.00 383 2.374 906 2.708 05 109 2275 410202% 2298 1.5 2253 0.92 10. 7515 4.691 348 10.02 264 2.374 906 2.708 05 148 2361 97.5202% 2385 5.2 2338 7.44 8.0 62515 4.997 212 10.05 995 2.087 224 2.708 05