Marketing Rail Travel for National Rail Organization - Case Study Example

For the purposes of this assignment, imagine that National Rail would like to create a positive advertising campaign that specifically targets individuals most likely to use rail travel in their daily lives. The services of this Marketing Research firm were commissioned to design and carry out a survey that identified such a target market. In order to design an appropriate survey, research was conducted to determine current trends in rail use and what major complaints exist about rail travel. According to the 2007-2008 third quarter report from Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) there has been an overall increase in train travel in the United Kingdom – the total number of passenger journeys by rail rose almost 5%. More specifically rail travel in the London/SE operations sector rose by 6% as did that of the regional operations (1.5%) while long distance travel declined slightly (-½%). The ORR also reported that most passengers buy an ordinary fare ticket as opposed to a season ticket. However, these same statistics show a steady increase in seasonal ticket sales and a small but steady decrease in ordinary fare sales (Office of Rail Regulation 11). Customer complaints were not available in the ORR’s third quarter report but a comprehensive list was found in the second quarter report. A majority of complaints (47%) arose due to actual train performance as assessed by the number of trains that were on time as defined by the Public Performance Measure initiated in 2000. This was followed by complaints about fares (16%) and conditions while on the train (11%) (Office of Rail Regulation 31). This leads survey designers to assume that a majority of people use the rail when timeliness is not an issue. It is further assumed that consideration of reasons for using the rail as transportation in the London sector can provide a target audience for new advertisements. Armed with this information and a goal, the Firm created a pre-survey which was then administered to five trial subjects. A careful review of the results of this survey determined several areas that needed to be amended prior to conducting the actual survey. Questions related to automobiles (e.g. cars, buses, motorcycles) distracted participants from consideration of rail services. Thus all questions of this nature were either rewritten or eliminated entirely. Certain phrases such as “if you were to use a rail service…” had to be omitted when it became obvious that participants were assuming that they could decide not to use a rail service. Since the purpose of the survey was to force participants to consider actually using rail services, all “if” statements were changed to state “when”. Finally, survey designers considered omitting questions that had an “explain your answer” feature. This was rejected on the grounds that written responses could lead to survey improvements in the future. These amendments led to the creation of the final survey as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Reasons to Use the Rail Survey Your participation in the following survey will provide valuable information concerning rail travel. Please mark the best answer to each of the following questions. If you are required to write an answer, please print in a legible hand. 1. Which of the following rail services do you use most often? local passenger train long distance passenger train underground train combination of those listed above (e.g. local passenger train + underground) 2. How many times per month do you take this mode of transport? 1-5 6-10 11-15 16+ 3. What is the main reason you take the mode of transport you marked in Question #1? To save time To save money (e.g. cost of parking and/or petrol) To avoid or lessen traffic Environmental reasons Forced to by Congestion and CO2 Charging fees and/or other legislation Because I enjoy it 4. Based on your experience, what is your general opinion of the rail system? Very Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Satisfied Dissatisfied If “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied”, why? ____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please drop it in the box at the end of the register and keep the pencil with our compliments! The survey was then conducted at a London supermarket located near a rail stop. Fifty surveys and pencils were given to customers in hopes of acquiring the needed sample of 20 for this assignment. This type of sampling is referred to as convenience sampling. While quite adequate for this exercise, this method of sampling may be inadequate for more stringent studies because no effort has been made to ensure that the respondents are representative of the entire population (Leedy & Ormrod 206). Without this safeguard statistical probabilities cannot be used and generalizations about the population cannot be made. In an actual study for the stated purpose, random cluster sampling would be a better method to use to avoid sampling bias. It is also important to note that the required sample size would not be sufficient in a real-world application. The standard rule of statistics is that a larger sample is better especially in such a heterogeneous population (Leedy & Ormrod 207). Bias is always a source of concern in research. As was previously mentioned this survey made no effort to ensure a randomly chosen, representative sample of the population. Thus the results of this survey may be greatly distorted due to sampling bias. However, efforts were taken to ensure that interest in the topic, education level, and language were not factors in the results. Of the 50 surveys given out, 25 were returned. With a return rate of 50%, bias due to non-response is negligible since it is equal to that of most studies (Leedy & Ormrod 209). One other source of bias that could play a part in the validity of this survey would be the location of the supermarket. Respondents outside the city may have answered quite differently than those in the city but preliminary research did suggest a focus on those who travel to and from London. The raw data responses from the 25 returned surveys can be found in Table 2 below and are depicted exactly as shown in the Excel spreadsheet originally used to record the data. Table 2: Survey Responses Respondent Mode Frequency Reason Opinion Comments 1 1 1 3 4 always late 2 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 4 3 2 5 1 3 4 3 6 3 3 5 3 7 3 3 2 3 8 3 4 3 3 9 3 3 3 3 10 2 1 2 2 11 1 3 4 3 12 1 1 4 5 Often delayed and interiors are filthy by day end 13 4 4 1 5 Too many delays for unknown reasons 14 2 1 3 3 15 2 1 6 1 16 4 4 5 1 17 4 3 5 2 18 4 3 4 2 19 1 1 6 2 20 1 1 6 3 21 3 4 2 4 Yuck! 22 2 1 2 2 23 3 4 4 3 24 3 4 4 3 25 4 3 2 5 fares are too much for the trouble Code Key: Mode - 1=local passenger train Frequency 1=1-5 2=long distance passenger train 2=6-10 3=underground 3=11-15 4=combination 4=16+ Reason- 1=time Opinion - 1=very satisfied 2=money 2=satisfied 3=traffic 3=neutral 4=environmental reasons 4=dissatisfied 5=force to 5=very dissatisfied 6=enjoy it The data stored in the Excel spreadsheet was then extracted by the statistical software program SPSS (Version 14.0 Grad Pack) and used to check for a correlation between any factors. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 3 below. There is a correlation between mode of transport used and the frequency with which it was used but this is most likely due to the fact that many individuals travel into London daily to work. As for a correlation between mode of transport and reason used, there is none. The same can be said for a correlation between frequency and reason. Table 3: Correlations ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Mode Reason Frequency Mode Pearson Correlation 1 -.370 .698(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .069 .000 N 25 25 25 Reason Pearson Correlation -.370 1 -.252 Sig. (2-tailed) .069 .224 N 25 25 25 Frequency Pearson Correlation .698(**) -.252 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .224 N 25 25 25 As previously discussed this survey does present biased information. Furthermore, the validity of this instrument is questionable as well. The instrument created does address the issue at hand and therefore has internal validity. However, it does not seem to bear any resemblance to the population at large or have any true insight into other locations outside London and therefore lacks external validity. If this survey were given in the same manner in a comparable location it would produce the same results which suggest that the instrument is reliable (Leedy & Ormrod 97). Table 4: Reasons Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Time 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 Money 7 28.0 28.0 32.0 Traffic 5 20.0 20.0 52.0 Environmental 6 24.0 24.0 76.0 forced to 3 12.0 12.0 88.0 enjoy it 3 12.0 12.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 The only insight to be gained from this survey that might be of use in the proposed advertisement can be found in Table 4 above. Most respondents make use of the rail system in order to save money, to avoid traffic, and/or to ensure continued environmental health. Thus advertisements that speak specifically to these points may find a more receptive audience. WORKS CITED: Leedy, Paul D., and Jeanne Ellis Ormrod. Practical Research Planning and Design. New Jersey: Pearson, 2005. Office of Rail Regulation. “National Railway Trends 2007-2008 Quarter 3.” 27 March 2008. National Rail Trends. 25 May 2008. < http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/356.pdf>. Office of Rail Regulation. “National Railway Trends 2007-2008 Quarter 2.” 13 December 2007. National Rail Trends. 25 May 2008. < http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/347.pdf>. Read More