MAR KET ING RES EAR CH

“Research Report on Allen’s Soothers”

PRE SENT ED B Y:
Fouzia Kousar
Hafiz Mohammad Tariq
Javad Ali Malik

PRE SENT ED T O:
Mr. Imran Sadiq

Pak-American Institute of Management Sciences

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praises for Almighty Allah who is “THE CR EA TOR” of

whole of the universe and admires to our Holy Prophet

Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) Who taught us every thing

of this life and the life thereafter.

Now it is our responsibility to convey the “WORDING OF

SUCCESS” to whole of the Ummah. As it was indicated in the

last Address of our Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). And

the graves of “FELLOW BEINGS” are the proof of the

completion of this responsibility.

We are thankful to our respected teacher MR NAD EE M

BAS HI R who taught us “marketing management ” with

heart and also gave a guideline to this report.

2
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is about NSW MINT CANDY We have adopted a

research methodology in which we have make a questionnaire,

filled it out from the target segment, and analyzed it. We find out

that other candies are working well according to positioning but

it requires a little bit changes. Therefore we are launching new

candy.

3
4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background 5
Positioning strategy 5

Research objective 6

Hypothesis 6

Focus group 6

Key findings of focus group 7

Questionnaire development 8

Questionnaire findings & analysis 13

Analysis of candies on different attributes 18

Factor analysis and perceptual mapping of Soothers 24

Recommendations 29

APPENDIX

5
6
 Background
There are many throat clearing candies available in the market and all of them
have unique features. But now we want some more improvement in these
candies therefore we have deciding to establish a new company named “NSW
CO”. We are launching a new pro0duct with the name of “NSW MINT
CANDY”.

Positioning Strategy

To take a competitive edge over other products in this category, we have

positioned it as a functional candy. This positioning has been backed by the
strategic marketing mix, which markets it as a normal candy with additional
value of freshening up and relieving the user from minor thirst congestion.
Hence with this positioning. It is kept away from existing strong functional
brands like strepsels, Hoest, Vicks etc.

To achieve this positioning strategy successfully, We have developed the

advertising copy to promote it as a candy that cheers up to user and freshens up.
The aim here is again to induce demand amongst the normal candy users. We
have identified the target market as people of age 18 to 25 years.

The price of the it is set at 50 paisas to project its image as a candy that can be
easily purchased by wide cross section of potential consumers. The purpose of a
single candy pack is also to increase the frequency of purchase as that of a
normal candy. The packing done in fancy wrappers is to further enhance the
image as a cool and fine candy.

Research Objectives
We conduct the research on the basis of following aspect .

7
• To identify perception of it on given attributes with respect to its
competitors.
• To find out the perceived positioning of it on key attributes in relation to its
desired position.

We have conducted the following research for our candy.

FOCUS GROUP
The focus groups, four in number, were conducted with the age group of 20-30
at Pak-Aims College. The occupation of the group members was students,
belonging to various geographical areas. Students were selected as they
construed a major element of our target market, which otherwise extended to
users within the 30-50 (year) age bracket. As the product – candies is consumed
both for its functional and non-functional attributes and generally by consumers
who are also the decision making units (DMU’s) on the purchase, focus group
findings can be used to figure out consumer’ preference for various brands on
these attributes.

In these focus groups, the students were asked to express their views on their
buying habits on candies: their awareness levels, the preferences and
reservations in opting for a certain brand, the perceived benefits associated to
the functional / non-functional functions etc. 2 describes the sequence of
methodologies adopted.

Key findings of the Focus Groups

The key findings of these groups are as under. A detailed account of focus group
and retailer in-depth interviews is given in Exhibit 1.

 It relief the throat problem.

 Strepsils is not a candy and It is not a medicine.

8
 Wrapping has an impact in projecting the functional value of a candy.
 Strepsils has serious kind of wrapping.
 Honey Strepsils works, but is very strong.
 If the candy is high on mint, it is more effective.
 Soothers is generally purchased from the left-over money (the change)
 Soothers is bought for change in taste / non-medicated reasons.
 Blue color of it gives a cool look.
 Blue is a color associated with mint – and mint is perceived both for
medicated and non-medicated purposes. Medicated for the soothing and
curative effect it’s perceived to carry and non-medicated for the sweet
freshening taste it brings.

Questionnaire Development

At the conclusion of the focus groups phase, a questionnaire was developed,

The basic input to this was achieved through the insights from the focus groups.
This data is analyzed using various statistical techniques and corroborative
(confirmatory) tabulation of each questionnaire.

Questionnaire Design:

The questionnaire was kept ‘closed’ and ‘open ended’ or a combination of both.
‘Closed ended’ multiple-choice questions to limit consumer response to a set of
pre-given variables and ‘Open ended’ to cart wheel any revealing thoughts,
which may also be taken as a proxy for assessing the psycho-graphic profile of
a consumer.

In addition, there were rating questions on a scale of 1 to 5, used to gather

respondent’s assessment of various brands on multiple attributes. These
questions would enable tabulation of the intensity of the responses gathered on
300 questionnaires, which was taken as a sample size for the purpose of

9
conducting this study. The sample was drawn randomly amongst student,
professionals, teachers etc., of both sexes, in order to obtain varied responses.

10
11
QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
After the the existence candies we came to know the following findings
TABLE 1

Education %
< 10yrs 6
10-12 7
12-14 22
14+ 65

Gender %
Males 70
Females 30

Occupation %
Student 78
Employed 18
Unemployed 4

Income (Rs) %
<10k 13
10-20k 15
20-30k 24
30+k 48

C
<18 15
18-25 57
25-35 28

12
COMPETITORS ANALYSIS

Table 1
Flavors mostly liked in Candies (% of respondents)
Mint Fruit Sweet Chocolates Coconut
Very strongly liked (5) 24% 13% 13% 31%
15%
Strongly liked (4) 20% 24% 26% 19%
13%
Total 44% 37% 39% 50%
28%

Table 2
3 Favorite candies (% of respondents)
1st Favorite 2nd Favorite 3rd Favorite TOTAL
Hoest 11% 11% 6% 28%
Hacks 0% 0% 0% 0%
Soother 2% 2% 17% 20%
Strepsils 0% 2% 0% 2%
Mentos 7% 13% 4% 24%
Polo 11% 11% 6% 28%
Vicks 2% 4% 0% 6%
Soft Mint 4% 0% 0% 4%
Eclairs 17% 6% 4% 26%
Misc 35% 33% 31% 100%

13
 Table 3
Medicated/non medicated
Purchase (% of users)
Medicated Non-Medicated Both Do
not buy
Hoest 33 30 11
24
Hacks 11 20 4
61
Soothers 24 30 24
18
Strepsils 67 11 17
6
Mentos 2 60 18
17
Polo 4 68 13
11
vicks 61 4 15
17

, Analysis for candies on various attributes

This analysis is based on the question, which tabulates the consumer’s

preferences of different attributes for the given candies.

Vicks
The users who consider sweetness to be least important attribute buy Vicks most
frequently. This reinforces the medicinal value of Vicks, as evidenced by the
purchase of Vicks due to its throat clearing ability.
Share of Vicks in total value attribute to the mint is relatively minimal, but
within the customer base of Vicks, their preference for Vicks is prompted by its
highly perceived value on mint. Here a possible inference emerges that the
medicinal value of product (throat clearing) and mouth freshening ability is
perceived to be associated with mint. The importance of packing and size in the
purchase decision for Vicks is quite minimal.

14
Polo
Polo is not conceived as a sweet candy. If viewed from the weightage table for
different candies on the attributes (shown in appendix B) that out of 176
respondents buying Polo frequently or sometimes, only 22 have high
preferences for sweet in their purchase decision for Polo.
Packing is considered to be an important attribute of Polo if analyzed from the
top two box approaches. Of the 174 respondents buying Polo, 86 give high
preference to the packing attribute of Polo. It shows that the look of the product
and the way of the packing helps inducing the demand for Polo. The concern
with the price is somewhat limited as of the regular buyers, 43% are least
concerned with the price of polo.

The medicinal value attached to Polo is restricted as almost 44% of the frequent
purchasers are less concerned with the throat cleaning ability of Polo. Looked
from the other angle, 40% of the respondents who are rare buyers of Polo also
give least weight age to the throat-clearing dimension in Polo.

This value is attributed to Polo for Mouth freshening is evened out across the
respondents. Amongst the frequent buyers, 50% prefer mouth freshening ability
of Polo.

Strepsils
Srepsils established itself as a typical functional candy with considerably lower
preference for sweet. Also the higher proportion of the occasional buyers also
reinforces the limit of its use to the functional requirements of the consumers.
Herein again, though 48% of the regular and occasional buyers of Stepsils lay
high preference on mint but in contrast, equally higher proportion of
respondents consider mint as of lesser importance. This further makes the exact
differentiation of the functional candies from non-functional on the basis of
mint alone, but unreliable. In terms of throat clearing dimension, however,
Strepsils is rated much higher.

15
Hoest
A clear distinction for this brand of consumers, who prefer Hoest more because
of its medicinal value, especially the perceived throat clearing and soothing
effect. The fact is established by a low preference for the attributes like
“Sweetness”, usually related to non-functional candies and a high pick on
attributes such as ‘throat-relieving’ by a majority (58%) regular buyers (frequent
& occasional) of this brand. Interestingly, it ranks only fourth in the mouth-
freshening capacity compare to its competitive brands, illustrated in the
following, indicating that the candy is preferred by brand-loyal customers
who’ve managed to cling on to their age-old choice.

Soothers

Soothers has a split choice amongst its consumers, in terms of their ratings of
brand’s strength on the five key attributes defined above, indicating that it is
perceived as a candy with a bit of both – the functional and non-functional
impact. As much as it would seem to be co-incidental, the statistic given in
Table A reflects that the company’s positioning strategy of placing its brand as a
multi-purpose candy, is holding well with the consumer. The catch however, is
that this is not translating into volumes, as the candy is still being bracketed
largely by a certain class of consumers – sophisticated, well educated and
elegant, usually calling (demanding) ‘Soothers’ by name at the point of
purchase. This class is relatively insensitive to minor place adjustments as it
places a premium in its purchase decisions, is prone to trying out new sleek
brands (innovator / early adapter category), yet is particular about the product
attributes that include functional as well as general attributes. Soothers to them
fairs reasonably well on the functional attributes as shown by the above table.
However, there are certain general attributes such as overall outlook, packing,
that are not valued highly by these customers. One of the findings of the focus

16
group, which was translated as one of the major dislikes about the brand was its
perceived stickiness (it melts), packing (difficulty to open) and lack of
handiness associated with carrying a one-off candy. Interestingly, some of these
consumers tag theuropatic value with a ‘Strepsils-like-candy’ – an opinion not
generally shared by a majority of respondents and would rather prefer to eating
a slightly light but handy candy, like Mentos and Polo. The advertisement of
taxi may also not be particularly appealing to them, as they are more attuned to
find and subtle messages.

The less sophisticated consumers, however, would be more conceived with

some variety, be generally be more price sensitive, and rather associate with the
kind of person in the taxi advertisement carrying the energy and the valor to
make thing going.

Exhibit 1
µ1717171717171717171717

17
181
8181
81818µn181818181818µn181818181818µn18188181818Ln1818418ì¥Á187
1818ð¿18181818181818181818181818ž1818

18
19bjbjUU191919191919191919191919191919191919 19j@ 197|19197|
1919c
™191919191919191919191919191919191919191919Ÿ19191919191919ÿÿ¤
19191
9191
9191
9191
9ÿÿ¤1
9191
9191
9191
9191
9ÿÿ¤1
9191
9191
9191
9191
9191
9191
9191
9191
9l1919191919<191919191919<1919<191919191919<191919191919ø1
91919191919ø191919191919ø1919µ1919191919191919191919

19
 202
020202020µn202020202020µn202020202020µn20208202020Ln2020420me
any three favorite candies.

4) Which candy/(ies) come in your mind for the purpose of Throat Clearing and
Mouth Freshening?

First Recall …………………………

Second Recall ………………………….

Third Recall ………………………….

5) Which of the following do you usually purchase for medicated/ non-

medicated reasons(please tick in the appropriate circle):

Medicated Non-Medicated Both Do not

Buy

Hoest

Soothers

Strepsils

Mentos

Polo

Vicks

6) Which of the following do you eat (please tick on the appropriate circle)?

Frequently Sometimes Rarely

Vicks

Polo

Mentos

Hoest

Soothers

20
Strepsils

7) Do you think of Soothers as:( you may encircle more than one)?

a. Just another candy

b. Helps Throat Clearing

c. Mouth Freshening

d. Other

8) Please rank the following on the given attribute on a scale of 1…5, 1

being the least preferred & 5 being most preferred.

Vicks Strepsils Soothers Hoest Polo Mentos

Sweetness

Mint

Size

Packing

Throat-clearing

Mouth-freshening

Overall taste

9) do you think that Soothers packing signifies its functional value(i.e does
it go with its throat clearing/mouth freshening abilities)?

Yes No Not Sure

10) What is about Soothers that you particularly like/ don’t like?

LIKES DISLIKES

21
 Appendix-B

THROAT-CLEARING FOR CANDIES- A CROSS

TABULATION:
Vicks Polo Mentos Hoest Soothers
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1
1 Count 0 11 21 22 3 8 14 7 12 8 13 9 9 15 10 7
% within 0 30% 26% 33% 14% 26% 26% 29% 29% 31% 27% 21% 24% 34% 26% 37
candy
% of 0% 9% 18% 18% 3% 7% 12% 6% 10% 7% 11% 8% 8% 13% 8% 6%
Total
2 Count 0 13 2 11 0 4 4 4 7 7 0 9 7 4 4 2
% within 0 35% 2% 16% 0% 13% 8% 17% 17% 27% 0% 21% 19% 9% 11% 11
candy
%of 0% 11% 2% 9% 0% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 0% 8% 6% 3% 3% 2%
Total
3 Count 0 2 11 7 4 2 9 0 4 0 4 9 4 7 2 2
% within 0 5% 14% 10% 19% 6% 17% 0% 10% 0% 8% 21% 11% 16% 5% 11
candy
%of 0% 2% 9% 6% 3% 2% 8% 0% 3% 0% 3% 8% 3% 6% 2% 2%
Total
4 Count 0 7 31 18 7 13 22 4 11 4 22 11 13 7 18 4
% within 0% 19% 38% 27% 33% 42% 42% 17% 27% 15% 46% 26% 35% 16% 47% 21
candy
% of 0% 6% 26% 15% 6% 11% 19% 3% 9% 3% 19% 9% 11% 6% 15% 3%
Total
5 Count 0 4 16 9 7 4 4 9 7 7 9 4 4 11 4 4
% within 0 11% 20% 13% 33% 13% 8% 38% 17% 27% 19% 10% 11% 25% 11% 21
candy
% of 0% 3% 14% 8% 6% 3% 3% 8% 6% 6% 8% 3% 3% 9% 3% 3%
Total
Total - 37 81 67 21 31 53 24 41 26 48 42 37 44 38 19
Count
% within 0 100 100 100 100 10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10
candy 0
% of 0 31% 69% 56% 18% 26 45% 20% 35% 22% 41% 36% 31% 37% 32% 16
Total %

22
 23 23j@ 237|23237|
2323c™2323232323
232
3232
3232
3232
3232
3232
3232
3232
3Ÿ23232323232323ÿÿ¤2
3232
3232323232323ÿÿ¤232323232323232323ÿÿ¤2323232323232323232323232323232323l23232
2323ð¿23232323232323232323232323ž232323bjbjUU2323232323232323232323232
2323c
™232323232323232323232323232323232323232323Ÿ23232323232323ÿÿ¤232
323232323232323ÿÿ¤232323232323232323ÿÿ¤2323232323232323232323232323232323l232
20.4 35.2
Total 33.4 29.6 11.1 26

Table7

23
 Soothers
Medicated Non Both Do not
Total
Medicated buy
Frequently 1.9 11.1 16.7 1.9
31.6
Sometimes 20.4 11.1 5.6 -
37.1
Rarely 1.9 7.4 1.9 20.4
31.6
Total 24.2 29.6 24.2 22.3

Analysis for candies on various attributes

This analysis is based on the question, which tabulates the consumer’s

preferences of different attributes for the given candies.

24
Vicks
The users who consider sweetness to be least important attribute buy Vicks most
frequently. This reinforces the medicinal value of Vicks, as evidenced by the
purchase of Vicks due to its throat clearing ability.
Share of Vicks in total value attribute to the mint is relatively minimal, but
within the customer base of Vicks, their preference for Vicks is prompted by its
highly perceived value on mint. Here a possible inference emerges that the
medicinal value of product (throat clearing) and mouth freshening ability is
perceived to be associated with mint. The importance of packing and size in the
purchase decision for Vicks is quite minimal.
Polo
Polo is not conceived as a sweet candy. If viewed from the weightage table for
different candies on the attributes (shown in appendix B) that out of 176
respondents buying Polo frequently or sometimes, only 22 have high
preferences for sweet in their purchase decision for Polo.
Packing is considered to be an important attribute of Polo if analyzed from the
top two box approaches. Of the 174 respondents buying Polo, 86 give high
preference to the packing attribute of Polo. It shows that the look of the product
and the way of the packing helps inducing the demand for Polo. The concern
with the price is somewhat limited as of the regular buyers, 43% are least
concerned with the price of polo.

The medicinal value attached to Polo is restricted as almost 44% of the frequent
purchasers are less concerned with the throat cleaning ability of Polo. Looked
from the other angle, 40% of the respondents who are rare buyers of Polo also
give least weight age to the throat-clearing dimension in Polo.

This value is attributed to Polo for Mouth freshening is evened out across the
respondents. Amongst the frequent buyers, 50% prefer mouth freshening ability
of Polo.

25
Strepsils
Srepsils established itself as a typical functional candy with considerably lower
preference for sweet. Also the higher proportion of the occasional buyers also
reinforces the limit of its use to the functional requirements of the consumers.
Herein again, though 48% of the regular and occasional buyers of Stepsils lay
high preference on mint but in contrast, equally higher proportion of
respondents consider mint as of lesser importance. This further makes the exact
differentiation of the functional candies from non-functional on the basis of
mint alone, but unreliable. In terms of throat clearing dimension, however,
Strepsils is rated much higher.

Hoest
A clear distinction for this brand of consumers, who prefer Hoest more because
of its medicinal value, especially the perceived throat clearing and soothing
effect. The fact is established by a low preference for the attributes like
“Sweetness”, usually related to non-functional candies and a high pick on
attributes such as ‘throat-relieving’ by a majority (58%) regular buyers (frequent
& occasional) of this brand. Interestingly, it ranks only fourth in the mouth-
freshening capacity compare to its competitive brands, illustrated in the
following, indicating that the candy is preferred by brand-loyal customers
who’ve managed to cling on to their age-old choice.

Soothers

Soothers has a split choice amongst its consumers, in terms of their ratings of
brand’s strength on the five key attributes defined above, indicating that it is
perceived as a candy with a bit of both – the functional and non-functional
impact. As much as it would seem to be co-incidental, the statistic given in
Table A reflects that the company’s positioning strategy of placing its brand as a
multi-purpose candy, is holding well with the consumer. The catch however, is

26
that this is not translating into volumes, as the candy is still being bracketed
largely by a certain class of consumers – sophisticated, well educated and
elegant, usually calling (demanding) ‘Soothers’ by name at the point of
purchase. This class is relatively insensitive to minor place adjustments as it
places a premium in its purchase decisions, is prone to trying out new sleek
brands (innovator / early adapter category), yet is particular about the product
attributes that include functional as well as general attributes. Soothers to them
fairs reasonably well on the functional attributes as shown by the above table.
However, there are certain general attributes such as overall outlook, packing,
that are not valued highly by these customers. One of the findings of the focus
group, which was translated as one of the major dislikes about the brand was its
perceived stickiness (it melts), packing (difficulty to open) and lack of
handiness associated with carrying a one-off candy. Interestingly, some of these
consumers tag theuropatic value with a ‘Strepsils-like-candy’ – an opinion not
generally shared by a majority of respondents and would rather prefer to eating
a slightly light but handy candy, like Mentos and Polo. The advertisement of
taxi may also not be particularly appealing to them, as they are more attuned to
find and subtle messages.

The less sophisticated consumers, however, would be more conceived with

some variety, be generally be more price sensitive, and rather associate with the
kind of person in the taxi advertisement carrying the energy and the valor to
make thing going.

Exhibit 1
µ2727272727272727272727

27
282
8282
82828µn282828282828µn282828282828µn28288282828Ln2828428ì¥Á287
2828ð¿28282828282828282828282828ž2828

28
29bjbjUU292929292929292929292929292929292929 29j@ 297|29297|
2929c
™292929292929292929292929292929292929292929Ÿ29292929292929ÿÿ¤
29292
9292
9292
9292
9ÿÿ¤2
9292
9292
9292
9292
9ÿÿ¤2
9292
9292
9292
9292
9292
9292
9292
9292
9l2929292929<292929292929<2929<292929292929<292929292929ø2
92929292929ø292929292929ø2929µ2929292929292929292929

29
 303
030303030µn303030303030µn303030303030µn30308303030Ln3030430me
any three favorite candies.

4) Which candy/(ies) come in your mind for the purpose of Throat Clearing and
Mouth Freshening?

First Recall …………………………

Second Recall ………………………….

Third Recall ………………………….

5) Which of the following do you usually purchase for medicated/ non-

medicated reasons(please tick in the appropriate circle):

Medicated Non-Medicated Both Do not

Buy

Hoest

Soothers

Strepsils

Mentos

Polo

Vicks

6) Which of the following do you eat (please tick on the appropriate circle)?

Frequently Sometimes Rarely

Vicks

Polo

Mentos

Hoest

Soothers

30
Strepsils

7) Do you think of Soothers as:( you may encircle more than one)?

a. Just another candy

b. Helps Throat Clearing

c. Mouth Freshening

d. Other

11) Please rank the following on the given attribute on a scale of 1…5, 1
being the least preferred & 5 being most preferred.

Vicks Strepsils Soothers Hoest Polo Mentos

Sweetness

Mint

Size

Packing

Throat-clearing

Mouth-freshening

Overall taste

12) do you think that Soothers packing signifies its functional value(i.e does
it go with its throat clearing/mouth freshening abilities)?

Yes No Not Sure

13) What is about Soothers that you particularly like/ don’t like?

LIKES DISLIKES

31
 Appendix-B

THROAT-CLEARING FOR CANDIES- A CROSS

TABULATION:
Vicks Polo Mentos Hoest Soothers
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1
1 Count 0 11 21 22 3 8 14 7 12 8 13 9 9 15 10 7
% within 0 30% 26% 33% 14% 26% 26% 29% 29% 31% 27% 21% 24% 34% 26% 37
candy
% of 0% 9% 18% 18% 3% 7% 12% 6% 10% 7% 11% 8% 8% 13% 8% 6%
Total
2 Count 0 13 2 11 0 4 4 4 7 7 0 9 7 4 4 2
% within 0 35% 2% 16% 0% 13% 8% 17% 17% 27% 0% 21% 19% 9% 11% 11
candy
%of 0% 11% 2% 9% 0% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 0% 8% 6% 3% 3% 2%
Total
3 Count 0 2 11 7 4 2 9 0 4 0 4 9 4 7 2 2
% within 0 5% 14% 10% 19% 6% 17% 0% 10% 0% 8% 21% 11% 16% 5% 11
candy
%of 0% 2% 9% 6% 3% 2% 8% 0% 3% 0% 3% 8% 3% 6% 2% 2%
Total
4 Count 0 7 31 18 7 13 22 4 11 4 22 11 13 7 18 4
% within 0% 19% 38% 27% 33% 42% 42% 17% 27% 15% 46% 26% 35% 16% 47% 21
candy
% of 0% 6% 26% 15% 6% 11% 19% 3% 9% 3% 19% 9% 11% 6% 15% 3%
Total
5 Count 0 4 16 9 7 4 4 9 7 7 9 4 4 11 4 4
% within 0 11% 20% 13% 33% 13% 8% 38% 17% 27% 19% 10% 11% 25% 11% 21
candy
% of 0% 3% 14% 8% 6% 3% 3% 8% 6% 6% 8% 3% 3% 9% 3% 3%
Total
Total - 37 81 67 21 31 53 24 41 26 48 42 37 44 38 19
Count
% within 0 100 100 100 100 10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10
candy 0
% of 0 31% 69% 56% 18% 26 45% 20% 35% 22% 41% 36% 31% 37% 32% 16
Total %

32
33