0.2. Method

The method of the survey was to take a random sample of the whole population and to administer the questionnaire to this group. No information about regional differences was relevant to this inquiry, which aimed, only to provide the basis for total manufacturing estimates.

0.3. Reception

The reception of this survey was very favourable, no refusals being encountered.

0.4. Sample

The sample of 2,000 interviews was distributed through the country in proportion to the populations of the regions, on the basis of the Ministry of Food population returns. In this sample, adequate representation was given to large, medium and small sized towns and to rural areas. This sample was chosen at random from the Post Office Directory where it was available, and included all inhabited houses. In a few cases where this was not available, the house was chosen at random from the electoral roll. Details of the samples are given below.

0.41. Class Analysis

Analysis of the sample is as follows: -

0.42. Urban and Rural

The numbers of the sample is as follows:-

0.43 Family Size Analysis

The average size of the family throughout the country is approximately 3.61. The average size of the families included in this sample is 3.61.

0.44. Towns Included into the Sample

The following towns were included in the sample. In addition, rural calls were made centring on the towns marked R.

0.5. The Questionnaire

0. 51. The questionnaire has one unusual feature; that is, that Questions 5 and 9 are asked in three forms. Information about the items broken is asked for in relation to last week, last month and the last three months. The purpose of this experiment was to check the validity of the corresponding question in the previous survey undertaken for the Board of Trade by another organisation, which asked how many articles were broken last year. It was considered that the last year figure would greatly underestimate the real position, owing to the deterioration of memory over time. The form of the present question enabled annual estimates to be constructed from three figures in which the possible loss due to memory was expected to increase as time elapsed.

The results of this experiment confirmed our belief that it was not practical to expect housewives to remember for more than about a week. Details of this are given in Appendix IV. The yearly estimates made in the report are based on the weekly figures.

It is arguable perhaps that the figure for a week does to some extent contain a compression of the breakages which occur in a period of slightly longer than a week. On the other hand, it is certain that where interviews were undertaken at the beginning of a week, memory often did not extend beyond the week-end.

In view of these differences, which were thrown up by the pilot and discussed with the Board of Trade before the inquiry started, a considerable amount of observation in the field was undertaken by the Senior Research Officer in charge of the survey, and it is considered that the estimate based on the weekly figure does not over-estimate the position.

There were certain minor additions made to the questionnaire after it was printed, and in one case after field work had begun. The totals in relation to these items are in consequence less than the whole sample.

1.2. Breakages

The average number of articles broken annually is given in the table below. This is arrived at by multiplying the number of cups broken last week by 52 and dividing by the number of households in the sample, namely 2,087. It will be seen from these figures that by far the highest breakage represented is that for cups, which is 20.8 per household per annum. Saucers is the next highest at 8.7%, dinner plates the next at 6.9% , and tea plates the next at 5.9%. (Table 1).

1.3. Intended Purchases

There are several possible sources in our data from which an annual estimate of needs could be obtained.

The first, and best because it is most objective, is the breakage rate already given.

The second source is the housewife's estimate of what she intended to buy next week, which was associated in the questionnaire with what she had broken last week.

The answers to this question are difficult to interpret for two reasons. In the first case, it is not possible to regard the situation as a continuous one in which current or recent breakages are being replaced in the immediate future, for owing to the shortage of supply there has been a damming up of demand. In the second case, a great number of the answers were expressed in a conditional form, i.e. “I would buy six cups if I could get them for less than 1/- each”.

It is likely that the unconditional demands are those for which the need is urgent, whereas the conditional demands are for the less urgent needs, and in particular to build up stocks to normal.

These conclusions are supported by two factors - It will be seen that the numbers of cups required unconditionally are fairly close to the number for which there is acute need; it will also be noticed that of the total demand the proportion of unconditional is lowest in the items known to be most scarce and highest in the known to be relatively plentiful.

It follows therefore that if a supply of these articles was made available there would be an immediate demand equal to the total of the conditional and unconditional demands, and that this would be followed by a steady demand at a rate not less than the annual breakage rate, and possibly as high as the unconditional demand rate, since the annual breakage rate calculated from our figure may be an underestimate where stocks are very low.

If however the supply made available is of a single pattern, then part of the conditional demand which is for items to make up sets not in daily use will not be forthcoming.

1.31. Immediate Demand

The immediate demand for cups will be at the rate of 1.9 per family, for saucers 1.3 per family and for dinner and tea plates .65 and .55 per family; of this total demand, about one third is unconditional and two thirds conditional. (Table 2).

1.32 Annual Demand Rate

As has been pointed out, the best estimate for an annual demand rate is the annual breakage rate once normal stocks have been built up.

The annual rates calculated from the unconditional (urgent) weekly demand corroborate this, as do annual rates obtained from the portion of the week's demand which was stated to be to meet an “acute need”. (“Acute need” refers to that part of the total demand for which the housewife said the need was acute and is thus a subjective valuation - this will be later compared with an objective evaluation - less than the minimum for essential use).

Table 3 shows how these two rates fall either side of the annual breakage rate and thus confirm the conclusion that this rate is the best estimate on which to base production.

1.33. Sets

Questions were asked about sets, as it was considered possible that part of the conditional demand might be for patterned sets not in general use, and in consequence this part of the demand might be ignored if a standard article was produced. This was however not found to be the case; if cups are taken as an example it will be seen that the number demanded which are not for early use is only 2.8% of the total.

1.34. The Proportion of Households Affected

So far these notes have referred only to a total demand expressed in terms of cups per household. The data has been further analysed to show what proportion of the total households were affected.

The number of household concerned in the total demand for cups was 763, 36.63% for saucer 503, 24.0%; and for dinner plates 295, 14.1% (Table 5).

It is possible to make a comparison of this result with another obtained from a separate inquiry carried out through our regional organisation at about the same date.

This inquiry discovered the proportions of housewives who had attempted to purchase certain articles including cups and teapots during the previous four weeks. The proportions were 41.5% for cups and 10.6% for teapots, whereas the proportions our sample who intended to make such purchases were 36.6% and 10.1% respectively.

1.4. Factors which are restricting the purchases of articles for which there was conditional demand .

The conditions that housewives stated would have to be fulfilled before they would purchase certain articles of pottery show very clearly the nature of this demand.

In the case of cups the limiting factor was price in 54.9% of cases, pattern, size or quality in 7.6% of cases, availability in 36.4% of cases; unwillingness to buy sets was a factor in 1.0% of cases. In almost all other cases, price or availability were the main considerations; pattern, size or quality was important in a few cases, mainly those where need was less urgent, as in soup plates (15.3%) tumblers (13.4%), small teapots (15.2%) and 1 pint jugs (12.6%); see Table 6. (It should be noticed that some of these reasons were expressed in relation to purchases next month, whereas demand in previous tables has been calculated on the basis of demand next week.)

1.5. Reasons expressed in relation to Unconditional Demand

The most important reasons that were expressed for wanting new pottery were all variations of a statement of need for daily use. Only two categories were different to this group namely:- “No wish to use good china” and “need new service or articles to match service.”

These two categories accounted for about 20% of the demand for cups and 17% of the demand for saucers. (Table 7).

1.6. Acute Need

Housewives were asked to indicate to what extent the need for the items the intended to buy was acute, and separate totals for this are given below. An annual demand rate, worked out from this, has already been given.

It will be seen that this part of the demand is 18.6% of the total demand cups, 9.7% of the total demand for saucers and 16.5% of the total demand for dinner [Text Missing] plates. It is highest in the case of chamber pots where it is 37.6%. (Table 8)

1.7. Households having less than the minimum necessary for essential use

In order to investigate further the relation of need to demand, housewives were asked in what items and to what extent their present stocks were less than the minimum necessary for normal use. This was defined in the cases of cups, saucers, etc. as being less than one for each member of the family, in the case jugs, teapots, etc. as less than one per family.

The analysis shows the proportion of families affected and the number of items for which there was this need.

The results also serve to corroborate the result of the question asked earlier about the extent to which unconditioned demand was in relation to acute need. It shows that need was considered acute when stocks were a little higher than the essential minimum of one cup, one saucer and one plate per head, but that in the cases of the other items of collective use such as teapots, jugs, basins etc., the correspondence was very close. In the case of chamber pots the second question gives a slightly higher result.

The items for which need was greatest were cups, of which the number less than the minimum was 522 in 185 households, saucers, 188 in 61 households, dinner plates, 176 in 65 households and tea plates, 99 in 26 households. The proportions of all the households affected were in the case of cups 8.9%, saucers 2.9% dinner plates 3.1% and tea plates 1.2%. (Table 9.)

(The results are of course not strictly relevant to the planning of production unless a rationing system based on need is introduced.)

TABLE 9

Articles of which households have less than the minimum necessary for essential use

1.8. Wash-hand Basins and Jugs

Housewives were asked whether or not they had a wash-hand basin and jug in use. There were only 1,139 answers to this question as it was introduced after the field work had begun; of these 272, 24.0% said they had a wash-hand basin and jug in use.

1.9. Chamber Pots for Babies

Interviewers were asked to note where the demand for chamber pots was for a new baby. This was so in 24 cases, a. little over 1% of the sample.

2.2. Breakages

Breakages of holloware based on last week's breakage are given in Table 1 as an annual rate.

2.3. Intended Purchases

This analysis has been divided into Immediate Demand and Annual Demand rate

2.31. Immediate Demand

The Immediate Demand for large saucepans will be at the rate of .086 per household per annum, for medium saucepans .208 per annum and for kettles .185 per annum. Of this demand one-third is unconditional and one-half to two-thirds unconditional. Particulars for all items are given in Table 2.

2.32 Annual Demand Raté

As in the case of Pottery, the best annual demand rate can be derived from the average annual breakage rate. Two other possible rates are however given below; they are a demand rate derived from the unconditional demand and a rate derived from the acute need category of Question 10. As in the case of Pottery, “acute need” is the housewife's subjective valuation. It will be seen that the three rates are very similar.

2.4. Factors which are restricting the purchase of articles for which there was conditional demand

These factors are similar to those found in relation to pottery, but the emphasis is different. “Poor Quality” is much less important, price is somewhat less important, availability on the other hand is more important and is the main factor. (Table 4).

2.5. Reasons expressed in relation to Unconditional Demand

The bulk of the reasons expressed in relation to unconditional demand were either to replace articles worn out or “haven't got one”. Other important reason were “require a different size” and for “reserve”.

2.6 Acute Need

The proportion of the total demand for holloware which was to meet an acute need is given in detail below; it ranges from about one eighth to a third total demand. (Table 6)

2.7 Households having less than the minimum necessary for essential use

This analysis like that of the Pottery Section shows clearly that the “acute need” corresponds very closely to the quantity needed to raise stocks to the minimum necessary for essential use defined as one per family in all items except saucepans where two were considered essential.

The numbers of families affected is quite large in the case of kettles, where it is 5.7% of the total and in the case of saucepans where it is 4.6% of the total. (Table 7)