1. Table of Contents
Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2
2. Findings .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1. Market definition ......................................................................................................... 2
2.2. Secondary data collection and analysis ....................................................................... 2
2.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 3
2.3.1. Quantitative research ............................................................................................ 3
2.3.2. Qualitative research .............................................................................................. 4
2.4. Presentation of the report ............................................................................................. 5
3. Conclusion & Recommendations ....................................................................................... 5
Reference .................................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix 1: The definition of the UK traditional toys and games market ................................ 6
Appendix 2: The analysis of the questionnaire .......................................................................... 6

2. Executive summary
This report was commissioned by order of Fred Foster, Managing Director, to evaluate the
research report by Hatfield Market Research Consultants UK to Playful Times Toys. This
report was to be submitted to him by 19th January 2011.
All sections of the subject report were evaluated in the period of December 17th and
December 30th concerning:
 The appropriateness of secondary data collection and analysis
 The suitability of the sampling
 The appropriateness of primary data collection and analysis
 The consistency of the questionnaire
 The conclusions and recommendations in the given report
 The presentation of the given report
Since the brief and the proposal are not provided, an in-depth evaluation of consistency
among the brief, the proposal and the given report could not be achieved. Also, the research
objective was not clearly stated in the given report. Hence, the objective given in the
methodology section [„if the company‟s new range of toys will be popular in the market‟] was
taken in consideration by evaluating the report overall.
This report explains the findings in detail, based on the above mentioned terms of reference.
Also, a detailed analysis of the questionnaire can be found in appendices. Fundamentally, the
report draws attention to the issues below:
 Both secondary and primary data are not up-to-date
 The content of secondary data is not consistent in itself. Some information does not
have back-up, consequently, does not have credibility.
 Overall, both secondary and primary data are unconvinced to relate to the research
objective. Samples are not representative.
 The relevancy and usefulness of information is not always the case.
 There are unethical practices regarding both secondary and primary researches.
In conclusion, it can be suggested to not accept the report by Hatfield Market Research
Consultants UK.
1

3. 1. Introduction
The report consists of two main sections – Findings and Conclusion &
Recommendation. First, findings will be produced under four main sub-sections including
„market definition’, ‘secondary data collection and analyses, ‘methodology’ and ‘presentation
of the report’ respectively. There is no separate section for the analysis of „ethical issues‟. The
relevant ethical points will be argued within the findings. Finally, the report will be concluded
with recommendations.
2. Findings
2.1. Market definition
In line with the Keynote (2010) definition of „The UK Traditional Toys and Games
Market (see Appendix 1), it appears that the market definition given in the report is not clear.
The target market for Playful Times Toys was defined as all items that can be used for Play
and Leisure such as dolls, games, and puzzles in the UK. First of all, “all items” has complex
meanings. It is too big to define. So the definition has no boundaries. In addition, we do not
know what the target age group is. Also, the content of the toys in question is not clear. Are
they including electronic contents? Does the market cover computer games and console
systems? What are the sub-categories in the market?
From the introduction section of the report, it is understood that Playful Times Toys is
a company manufacturing a range of simple toys for „pre-school age children‟, under 5 years
old. So, the company‟s target audience already focused on the infant/pre-school category
within the toy market. However, the definition stated in the report shows that the consultant
agency defined its own target market for Playful Times Toys.
2.2. Secondary data collection and analysis
Malhotra (2007) indicates that decision makers require current data, so the value of
data is decreased as they become dated. In the report the secondary data is based on the
figures in 2004. Considering the recent economic crunch, it can be argued that the data may
not reflect accurate figures for household disposable income and the market value based on
six year-old retail prices.
The content of the secondary data should be examined based on the definition of key
variables, the categories used, the units of measurement and so on (Malhotra, 2007).
However, as mentioned, the definition of market is not clear. The effects of the poor market
definition can be seen especially in secondary data collection. Different measures were used
in the figures such as “Traditional Toys and Games”, “Games and Toys market”, “Toys and
Games Market (including computer games)”.
Table 1 shows the value of “traditional” toys and games market, while Table 3
consists of information that includes “computer games”, which are normally excluded from
the traditional toys and games market definition (see Appendix 1). Based on Table 1 the
report suggests that the games and toys market is slowing down. However, this might be
explained by falling retail prices. Therefore, it is not secure to say that the market is slowing
down based on only this figure.
The report claims that the annual rise in household disposable income (Table 2), along
with “falling family size” means that per capita spending on children has risen. There is no
2

4. evidence in the report to show that the family size in the UK is decreasing. So it can be said
that the credibility of the information is a question mark, based on the given data.
The relevance and usefulness of secondary data to the problem at hand is an ethical
issue (Malhotra, 2007). It can therefore be inferred that the use of secondary data that is not
applicable to the research objectives is unethical. Table 3 shows the frequency of purchasers
based on age groups. As mentioned, first of all, this figure includes computer games, which
should have excluded from the traditional toy market. Secondly, this figure is irrelevant
regarding the objective of this research (see section 2.3).
2.3. Methodology
From the methodology section of the report, it is understood that the objective of the
research is to decide „whether the company‟s new range of toys will be popular in the
market‟. With this in mind, the consultant agency claims that the research was designed to be
conclusive.
The objective of conclusive research is to describe specific phenomena, to test specific
hypothesis and to examine specific relationship (Malhotra, 2007: 72). Hereby, it can be
argued that the given objective of the research does not fit to conclusive research design.
On the other hand, exploratory research is the research to provide insights and to
understand of the nature of the phenomena. It can use both quantitative and qualitative
explorations. Exploratory research may be designed at investigating whether there is any
interest in a new product idea (Wilson, 2006). Therefore, it could be suggested that the given
objective leads to the exploratory research design, rather than the conclusive one.
2.3.1. Quantitative research
2.3.1.1. Sampling
The report states that the agency worked in conjunction with the university and
obtained 15 LEAs in England to conduct research at their primary schools. First of all,
primary schools are for children aged from four to eleven year-old. However, Playful Times
Toys is a company manufacturing toys for pre-school-age children (see section 2.1). As a
result, the research place, and consequently the population of interest are not appropriate for
the purpose of this research.
On the other hand, we do not know which schools were chosen to carry out interviews.
Are they from only the South Mimms area? Or are they from fifteen different regions in
England? Are they private schools or state schools? All these questions affect the
representativeness of the sample and eventually the results of the research because the
variables such as household disposable income, demographic indicators, education, number of
children per family, and many others will change based on these questions.
Interviews were carried out between 1st and 15th December 2006. First of all, as is the
case for secondary data, again the primary data is not up-to-date. Secondly, the period of time
may be arguable since it is just before Christmas when toy sales are the highest at that
moment of the year. It may influence the questions 4, 5, and 7 in the given questionnaire.
The reports claims that respondents were selected using a „simple random sample‟.
Simple random sampling, which is one of the probability sampling methods, refers to the
sample in which every member of the population of interest (which is stated in the report as
„mothers with children at school‟) has an equal chance of being selected. “Simple random
3

5. sampling is only possible when we can get a complete, up-to-date listing of the population of
interest” (Wilson, 2006: 201). However, it appears to be the case that it is not the simple
random sample what the agency carried out, but „convenience sampling‟. Malhotra (2007)
states that convenience sampling is a method in which the selection is left primarily to the
interviewer. Interviewing people on the street is one example of this type of sampling.
Respondents are selected since they happen to be in the given place (that is the gates of the
schools in our case) at the right time. He goes on to say that convenience sample is not
representative and not recommended for conclusive research (Malhotra, 2007).
From the above discussion, considering the agency‟s claim of using conclusive
research design, coupled with the fact of using a simple random sample, it can therefore be
inferred that the consultant agency has no idea what they are doing.
2.3.1.2. Questionnaire
The agency states that 1250 interviews were completed. However, Table 7 indicates
that only 270 people reached to the end because there are several „exit questions‟ in the
questionnaire. From the questionnaire, it is observed that there is a concentration on
„electronic teddy bear‟. It is difficult to understand why there is such a focus since the brief
and the proposal were not provided. However, even if the company‟s new product range is
„teddy bear‟, then, primary schools are not the right places so as to measure the potential
interest for „teddy bear‟.
In conclusion, Brace (2008) states that it is an ethical issue to ensure that the
questionnaire is fit for the purpose of the research, which is in our case „to understand if the
company‟s new range of toys will be popular in the market‟. With this in mind, it can be seen
that the questionnaire is not appropriate to measure this phenomenon.
Further reservations about the questionnaire were presented as an appendix. Please
refer to Appendix 2 for in depth information.
2.3.2. Qualitative research
Qualitative research is an unstructured exploratory design based on small samples so
as to provide insight and understanding of the subject (Malhotra, 2007). It is particularly
suited to measure likely interest in the concept (Wilson, 2006). Therefore, it is appropriate to
carry out qualitative research techniques such as focus groups, personal interviews and
observation for the purpose of the given research objective. However, there are some
reservations related to sampling, execution and ethics.
Firstly, it can be argued that the usage of company employees whose children are
registered at the company‟s crèche is not appropriate in terms of sample. Their opinions will
most likely be biased since they work in Playful Times Toys. They are already aware of the
products and have (or would have) positive criticism about the company‟s products. As a
matter of fact, the results that the consultant agency pointed out based on focus groups and
personal interviews are not reliable. In other words, it is secure to say that the sample is not
representative. On the other hand, it appears that the respondents were talked about the
dangers of fast food. This is irrelevant information, and consequently unethical since it is not
fit for the objective of the research at hand (Malhotra, 2007). In addition, an informant‟s name
was declared in the report which is unethical based on the „respondent‟s rights to anonymity‟
(MRS, 2010a).
4

6. In terms of the observation technique carried out in two other crèches, there are also
some reservations. Firstly, parents were used in the observation process, which is not
appropriate since they are not trained researchers. Moreover, parents might have effects on
their children‟s interest during the observation process. Secondly, it appears that the nurseries
were not told about the research process so as to get unbiased responses. However, this is an
ethical issue. The consent of a parent or responsible adult - who are nurseries in our case -
must be given sufficient information about the nature of the research process to enable them
to provide informed consent (MRS, 2010b). If it is needed to camouflage the purpose, then
the informants must be told beforehand that this is the case, and entire details supplied at the
end of the research (Hall et al, 2010).
2.4. Presentation of the report
First of all, the report does not have cover page, executive summary and table of
contents. Sections and sub-sections are not numbered. In addition, there are two background
sections in the report. Research objective does not appear. It normally should have been stated
before the terms of reference. However, the objective is understood afterwards from the
methodology section. This implies that the consultant agency did not have a proper research
design and planning. Overall, it can be concluded that the report fails to relate to the research
objective. Moreover, there are some pitfalls in both secondary and primary research.
Especially in secondary research, numbers based on figures were mainly repeated without
proper interpretation. In addition, some explanations and recommendations were offered
based on a single statistic. Consequently, it can be concluded that data analysis is inaccurate
(Hall, 2010).
3. Conclusion & Recommendations
In light of the above mentioned findings, it can be commented that the report by
Hatfield Market Research Consultants UK is poor to answer the research objective about the
Playful Times Toy‟ s new range of products. Also, it should be borne in mind that all above
mentioned ethical issues are in charge of Playful Times Toys as the client, as well as the
researcher company. In conclusion, it can be recommended to not accept the report.
The following research approach could be suggested in regard to measure children‟s
interest to the company‟s new range of products:
An exploratory research design in crèches (rather than the company‟s own crèche),
covering different regions (not only South Mimms), with trained researchers (not
parents) in co-operation with nurseries, by using video record equipments to further
analyse of children‟s behaviours and reactions toward the company‟s new range of
toys, and regarding all ethical issues for the research process.
5

7. Reference
Brace, I. (2008) Questionnaire Design: How to plan, structure and write survey material for
effective market research. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page
Hall, E., Large, C., O‟Connor, E. and Dunne, S. (2010) Workbook for Research for Marketing
Practitioners. (September) University of Hertfordshire
Malhotra, N. K. and Birks, D. F. (2007) Marketing Research An Applied Approach. 3rd ed.
Essex: FT Prentice Hall
MRS (2010a) „Respondents‟ Rights to Anonymity. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/downloads/Code%20of%20Conduct%202010.pdf
[Accessed 20th December 2011]
MRS (2010b) „Preparing for fieldwork- Children. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/downloads/Code%20of%20Conduct%202010.pdf
[Accessed 20th December 2011]
Wilson, A. (2006) Marketing Research An Integrated Approach. 2nd ed. Essex: FT Prentice
Hall
Appendix 1: The definition of the UK traditional toys and games
market
According to Keynote (2010), the UK traditional toys and games market includes the
products are primarily targeted at the under-14s, although there is some overlap with the adult
market where toy products are designed for or bought for adults. The products may have some
electronic content, but they exclude video, PC and console systems and games. The market
consists of ten categories: action, activity, dolls, electronic, games/puzzles, infant/pre-school,
outdoor and sports, plush, vehicles and other products.
Appendix 2: The analysis of the questionnaire
Do you live in this area? : This is an irrelevant question. It has no ability to measure the given
objective. Moreover, as mentioned before, we already do not know which area or areas we are
talking about. As a matter of fact, this information was not used in the report as a conclusion
or recommendation.
What age are you? : This is an irrelevant question. Based on this question, we see that the
agency prepared Table 4 in the finding section, claiming that 25-34 year-olds age group is
6

8. most-likely to buy toys, while 65 plus age group is least likely to buy toys. First of all, we
already know this information based on the secondary research. So, it is unethical. Secondly,
this question measures the age of people who are waiting at the outside of the primary school.
They might be siblings, nannies, grandparents. But the population of interest was stated as
„mothers at children at school‟. Also, considering the fact that primary school is for children
aged at least four year-olds, the category 15-19 under the question does not make sense at all.
In addition, if the respondents answer is „no‟ for the next question, we cannot use the results
of question 2.
Do you buy children‟s toys? If no go to end: If we do not interview for people who say „no‟ to
this question, what is the purpose of asking them first two questions? If the population of
interest is the people who buy children‟s toy, then this question could be asked as a first
question in the process of selecting respondents.
The categories under question 5 - weekly- monthly- yearly, etc. - are not appropriate. What
exactly is meant by weekly? Does it refer to „one time a week‟ or „five times a week‟?
Brace (2008) states that the questionnaire sequence should be easy to follow by both
interviewer and respondents. Question 4, 8 and 10 include long lists that are difficult to follow
by respondents. In fact, question 10 refers to this list in question 8, which is difficult for
respondents to remember all items again. On the other hand, question 12, which includes the
expression „if yes to any‟, is difficult to follow by interviewer, looking at all past yes-no
questions to check whether all of them are „yes‟.
Bruce (2008) suggests that a question should not cause interviewer to turn the page to see all
possible responses. The questionnaire looks too long, 3 pages. This may affect the response
rate if the respondents think that the questionnaire is long. In addition, a crowded layout might
lead the interviewer mistakes (Bruce, 2008). Therefore, it can be suggested that smaller font
or more intense layout could have been used to fit questions on to one paper.
In question 12, „other‟ answer code should be written what „other‟ is.
For the list questions, an instruction should be given in order to clarify whether single or
multiple responses are expected (Bruce, 2008). Based on this, question 10 should have been
given instruction as is the case in question 4, 8, 12 and 13. Besides, Bruce (2008) suggests
that single set of responses can be used next to each other for the questions which have the
same list of codes. Hereby, question 4, 8 and 10 could have prepared based on this structure in
order to facilitate to follow by both interviewer and respondents.
It is unreasonable to assume that everybody will remember an issue that may have happened
some time ago. So, „Don‟t know‟ or „Can‟t remember‟ categories should be included in
questions where necessary (Bruce, 2008). Hereby, it can be suggested that especially question
4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 could have included „can‟t remember‟ or „don‟t know answer codes
accordingly.
7