Type of package 



Average weekly sales per store l/ 



Cellophane overwrapped trays. 

 Home toter bags 



Packages 



215 

 2/ 25^ 



l/ Adjusted for differences in number of customers patronizing stores 

 during the experimental weeks and the loss due to shrinkage. 



2/ Increase in sales significant at 20 percent probability level. 



Costs for labor and packaging materials for the home toter bag were 

 approximately one-half cent less than costs for the cello overwrapped tray 

 (appendix, table 7)» Therefore, both in sales and in economy the home toter 

 bag seems to be more advantageous for grapes than the overwrapped tray. The 

 additional sales and reduced cost, however, should be weighed against the loss 

 of net profit from shrinkage. With the prices and markups used during the test, 

 the net margin realized from grapes sold in home toters was only $1 more than 

 for grapes sold in trays, although gross sales using home toters exceeded grape 

 sales in trays by nearly $13, as shown below: 



Cellophane overwrapped trays : 



Gross sales of 215 packages @ 3I2 cents a package $67-73 



Costs for 215 packages : 



Labor and materials @ k.k'J cents a package $ 9.61 

 Grapes @ 21 cents a package h^. 15 



Total direct costs 5^.76 



Net margin over direct costs 12.97 



Home toter bags : 



Gross sales on 25^ bags @ 3I5 cents a bag l/ 80.01 



Costs for 265 bags: 2/ 



Labor and materials @ 3*92 cents a bag 10.39 

 Grape 8 @ 21 cents a bag 55.65 



Total direct costs 66.04 



Net margin over direct costs 13*97 



l/ Number of packages sold after adjustment for losses. 

 2/ Number of packages placed on display for sales of 25^- packages, 

 assuming a k percent loss. 



Findings of the quality control test showed that grapes in the tray over- 

 wrapped with perforated cellophane lost less weight and shriveled less than 



- 7 - 



