Spring 2023

Marketing Research (MKT470)

Section: 06
Group: D
Term Paper

An Examination on the Role of Age in Consumers’ Preference to Their Preferred

Anti-Ageing Cream

Submitted To

Dr. Mohammad Tayeenul Hoque (TyH)

Associate Professor
Department of Marketing and International Business
North South University

Submitted By

Name NSUID
Shah Nafis Ahammed 1931064030
Reeti Biswas 1921410030
Md. Nabid Adnan Bin Anwar 1921435630
Raisa Reaz 1921809030
Md. Ashikur Rahman 1921884030

Submitted On: 09/06/2023

 Abstract
By doing this study, we intend to learn what the most significant aspects are for customers. Our findings
aim to provide a comprehensive comparison of two well-known anti-aging cream products, Olay and
Neutrogena, in order to establish their effectiveness as perceived by their customers. Our study's
independent variables are Olay and Neutrogena. Age is the moderate variable, while customer cream
preferences are the dependent variable. For this survey, we polled a total of 40 people. We manipulated
at 1 point. We accomplished this by displaying the images to those who were surveyed. We
accomplished this by displaying the images to those who were surveyed. The dependent variables show
a substantial positive connection within each other and a low correlation between them, according to
the data. As a consequence, because the Within Correlation is high and the Between Correlation is low,
we may conclude that the dependent variable questionnaire questions were reasonably important. Based
on a One Sample T-test, we may infer that our alteration was effective. Neutrogena is preferred by both
young and old people, according to our research. This means that Neutrogena has a diverse clientele
across all age groups, which is a plus. They should continue to promote to both young and old
customers, highlighting the brand's capacity to meet the needs of both age groups.
1. Introduction
Across various age groups, the pursuit of acquiring youthful and radiant skin has been quite prevalent.
As a viable remedy to fight the telltale symptoms of age, anti-aging creams have gained significant
popularity amongst the realm of cosmetic industry. These creams aim to tackle typical complications of
aging such as fine lines and wrinkles, loosening of the skin, and uneven texture. However, it can be
quite cumbersome for customers to choose the most suitable brand as the industry is flooded with
numerous anti-aging creams. Preferences of brands can vary on the basis of one’s age. Anti-aging
creams are said to be most effective if used before signs of aging starts to show. Through this research
we intend to explore what are the prime attributes consumers usually look for. Our findings aim to
provide an in-depth comparative analysis of two renowned anti-aging cream brands, Olay and
Neutrogena, to identify their effectiveness as perceived by its users. This study intends to bridge the
knowledge gap and provide consumers with a comprehensive comparison between these brands.
Moreover, the study tries understand consumers’ preferred cream and how different dependent variables
affect this preference.
2. Methodology
Process

A 2 (effectiveness of anti-aging cream) X 2 (types of cream) matrix between subject experimental

design was employed in this study.
We adopted a scenario based experimental design to examine the effectiveness of our anti-aging cream
(Neutrogena) against competitor's product (Olay).

Age

Preferred Cream Effectiveness of Cream

Figure: Conceptual Model

In this study our variables were,

A) Independent Variable: Type of cream (Our new product and competitor's product)
B) Moderator Variable: Age
C) Dependent Variable: Effectiveness of cream based on skin elasticity and firmness.

Measure

After usage, a total of 5 questions were delivered to both of the groups to find out the consumer
preference, using a 5-point Likert scale for measurement. Additionally, for reference we showed them
the packaging of both creams to see if "Insight Experience " manipulates the results or not.

The 5 questions we provided were used to scale the participant's perceptions of Neutrogena.
In an attempt to check if the manipulation worked or not, a question was also included about preference
through packaging. As expected, most participants responded to the manipulating step and selected
options that preferred Neutrogena mostly.

Sample Characteristics

We divided 40 random participants into 2 groups; we provided one group with Neutrogena and another
with Olay. After enquiring their age, they were asked which brand they preferred; Olay or Neutrogena.
3. Results and Interpretations
3.1 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive Statistics

IV Mod DV1 DV2 DV3 DV4 DV5

N Valid 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.03 1.50 3.18 2.90 3.20 3.00 3.00
Median 3.00 1.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.00 3.00
Std. Deviation 1.39 0.51 1.47 1.53 1.36 1.54 1.54
Variance 1.922 0.256 2.148 2.349 1.856 2.359 2.359
Table-1: Frequencies Table

From Table-1, we can interpret that since standard deviation of all variables are less than their respective
means (MDV1=3.18, MDV2=2.90, MDV3=3.20, MDV4=3.00, MDV5=3.00) the responses are clustered around
the mean. Moreover, this would show a less variable set of responses, while no missing values exist in
the dataset, ensuring that all 40 respondents (N=40) have answered all questions.

The median of the independent variable (MeIV=3.00) and DV1 (MeDV1=2.00) is smaller than their mean,
which indicates that they are negatively skewed, while the median of DV1 and DV3 (MeDV1=3.50,
MeDV3=3.50) are larger than the mean indicating that they are positively skewed. Additionally, the mean
of the moderator variable, DV4 and DV5 (MMod=1.50) and their median (MeMod=1.50, MeDV4=3.00,
MeDV5=3.00) are equal, which indicates that each of these variables are normally distributed.
3.2 Correlation

IV Mod DV1 DV2 DV3 DV4 DV5

Pearson
1 0.018 -.469** -.325* -.328* -.325* -.325*
IV Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.911 0.002 0.041 0.039 0.041 0.041
Pearson
0.018 1 0.052 -0.132 0.000 -0.165 -0.165
Mod Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.911 0.751 0.416 1.000 0.309 0.309
Pearson
-.469** 0.052 1 .853** .817** .752** .752**
DV1 Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.751 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pearson
-.325* -0.132 .853** 1 .808** .806** .806**
DV2 Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.041 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pearson
-.328* 0.000 .817** .808** 1 .870** .870**
DV3 Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.039 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pearson
-.325* -0.165 .752** .806** .870** 1 1.000**
DV4 Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.041 0.309 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pearson
-.325* -0.165 .752** .806** .870** 1.000** 1
DV5 Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.041 0.309 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 2: Correlations

Within Correlation

We can see that the dependent variables (DV1, DV2, DV3, DV4, DV5) have a high positive correlation
(>0.5) between each other. Moreover, all of them are significant in nature. Additionally, DV4 and DV5
have a perfectly positive correlation of 1, which shows that responses were same for these two
dependent variables across the board.

Between Correlation

We can see that the correlation between the Independent Variable and Moderator Variable (Age) is low.
Here, we can see that the Pearson Correlation coefficient between the IV and Mod is 0.018, which is
very low.

Therefore, since the Within Correlation is high and the Between Correlation is low, we can infer that
the questions in the questionnaire related to the dependent variable were rather significant.
3.3 One Sample T-Test

Tests N Mean Mean Difference (MD) Sig (0.05<P)

IV (IDGRP = 1) 20 2.950 2.950 0.00
IV (IDGRP = 2) 20 3.100 3.100 0.00
IV (IDGRP = 1 | IDGRP = 2) 40 3.025 3.025 0.00
AGEQ (AGRP = 1) 20 3.100 3.100 0.00
AGEQ (AGRP = 2) 20 2.700 2.700 0.00
AGEQ (AGRP = 1 | AGRP = 2) 40 2.900 2.900 0.00
Table 3: T-Test Results

IDGRP

From Table 3, we can see that the Mean Difference of IDGRP = 1 (MD = 2.950) is lower than that of
IDGRP = 2 (MD = 3.100). Moreover, the p-value is less than 0.00 when shows that our data is significant.
So, comparing to the Mean Difference of IDGRP = 1 | IDGRP = 2 (, we can infer that our manipulation
was successful as a difference remains.

AGRP

Additionally, from Table 3, we can also see that the mean difference of AGRP = 1 (MD = 3.100) is
higher than that of AGRP = 2 (MD = 2.700). Moreover, the p-value is less than 0.00 when shows that
our data is significant. So, comparing to the mean difference of AGRP = 1 | AGRP = 2 (M D = 2.900),
we can infer that our manipulation was successful as a difference remains.
3.4.1 Univariate Test (Neutrogena | Olay)

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: CPM
N
IDGRP AGRP Mean Std. Deviation

Young (18-35) 3.2800 1.60610 10

Neutrogena Old (36-70) 3.3400 1.25096 10
Total 3.3100 1.40147 20
Young (18-35) 3.0800 1.50022 10
Olay Old (36-70) 2.5200 1.20074 10
Total 2.8000 1.35336 20
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Sig.
Levene Statistic df1 df2

CPM (Based on Means) 0.959 3 36 0.423

Design: Intercept + IDGRP + AGRP + IDGRP * AGRP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source F Sig.

Corrected Model 0.712 0.551

Intercept 190.546 0.000
IDGRP 1.328 0.257
AGRP 0.319 0.576
IDGRP * AGRP 0.491 0.488
R Squared = .056 (Adjusted R Squared = -.023)

Parameter Estimates

Parameter B

Intercept 2.520
[IDGRP=1.00] 0.820
[IDGRP=2.00] 0
[AGRP=1.00] 0.560
[AGRP=2.00] 0
[IDGRP=1.00] * [AGRP=1.00] -0.620
[IDGRP=1.00] * [AGRP=2.00] 0
[IDGRP=2.00] * [AGRP=1.00] 0
[IDGRP=2.00] * [AGRP=2.00] 0
Table 4: Univariate Test (Neutrogena and Olay)
Through the above test, we looked upon the effect of the IDGRP and AGRP on the dependent variable
with respect to Neutrogena and Olay (The Independent Variables).

Mean Inference

From Table 4, we can see that, when considering Neutrogena, the value for Myoung = 3.28, while Mold =
3.34, with Standard Deviation of 1.61 and 1.25 respectively, while the mean for both cases together was
3.31 with a Standard Deviation of 1.40. This indicates that in case of Neutrogena, effectiveness was
highest among the old segment of the sample. On the other hand, when considering Olay, the value for
Myoung = 3.08, while Mold = 2.52, with Standard Deviation of 1.50 and 1.20 respectively, while the mean
for both cases together was 2.80 with a Standard Deviation of 1.35. Additionally, this indicates that in
case of Olay, effectiveness was highest among the young segment of the sample.

Heterogeneity Test

After looking at the mean inference, we look for any significant difference between the groups by
analyzing the Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance where our p value of 0.423>0.05. This shows
that the two groups of Neutrogena and Olay are homogenous in nature, i.e., no significant difference
remains.

Between-Subjects Effects Test

Here, we can see that the corrected model is insignificant (p = 0.551>0.05). Hence, the dependent
variables were not primarily affected by the interaction or IDGRP * AGRP. Now, assuming that our p-
value is significant (p<0.05), we will need two other elements to satisfy the terms; beta coefficient and
f-value. We can already see that our p-value shows insignificance, however, the F-value of interaction
is 0.491 and the r-square value was 0.056, which indicates that the independent variable factors for
5.6% of any variations in CPM (Calculated Mean). So, we have estimates values for IDGRP, AGRP,
and the interaction through this test, which shows how they affect the dependent variables.
3.4.2 Univariate Test (Young | Old)

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: CPM
N
IDGRP AGRP Mean Std. Deviation

Neutrogena 3.2800 1.60610 10

Young Olay 3.0800 1.50022 10
Total 3.1800 1.51609 20
Neutrogena 3.3400 1.25096 10
Old Olay 2.5200 1.20074 10
Total 2.9300 1.26537 20
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Sig.
Levene Statistic df1 df2

CPM (Based on Means) 0.959 3 36 0.423

Design: Intercept + IDGRP + AGRP + IDGRP * AGRP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source F Sig.

Corrected Model 0.712 0.551

Intercept 190.546 0.000

IDGRP 0.319 0.576

AGRP 1.328 0.257

IDGRP * AGRP 0.491 0.488

R Squared = .056 (Adjusted R Squared = -.023)

Parameter Estimates

Parameter B

Intercept 2.520

[IDGRP=1.00] 0.560

[IDGRP=2.00] 0

[AGRP=1.00] 0.820

[AGRP=2.00] 0

[IDGRP=1.00] * [AGRP=1.00] -0.620

[IDGRP=1.00] * [AGRP=2.00] 0

[IDGRP=2.00] * [AGRP=1.00] 0

[IDGRP=2.00] * [AGRP=2.00] 0
Table 5: Univariate Test (Young and Old)
Through the above test, we looked upon the effect of the IDGRP and AGRP on the dependent variable
with respect to Young and Old (Moderator Variable).

Mean Inference

From Table 5, we can see that, when considering Young, the value for MNeutrogena = 3.28, while MOlay =
3.08, with Standard Deviation of 1.61 and 1.50 respectively, while the mean for both cases together was
3.18 with a Standard Deviation of 1.52. This indicates that in case of the Young, effectiveness was
highest for Neutrogena. On the other hand, when considering Old, the value for MNeutrogena = 3.34, while
MOlay = 2.52, with Standard Deviation of 1.50 and 1.20 respectively, while the mean for both cases
together was 2.80 with a Standard Deviation of 1.35. Additionally, this indicates that in case of Old,
effectiveness was highest for Neutrogena. Hence, in both cases, Neutrogena garnered more preference.

Heterogeneity Test

After looking at the mean inference, we look for any significant difference between the groups by
analyzing the Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance where our p value of 0.423>0.05. This shows
that the two groups of Young and Old are homogenous in nature, i.e., no significant difference remains.

Between-Subjects Effects Test

Here, we can see that the corrected model is insignificant (p = 0.551>0.05). Hence, the dependent
variables were not primarily affected by the interaction or IDGRP * AGRP. Now, assuming that our p-
value is significant (p<0.05), we will need two other elements to satisfy the terms; beta coefficient and
f-value. We can already see that our p-value shows insignificance, however, the F-value of interaction
is 0.491 and the r-square value was 0.056, which indicates that the independent variable factors for
5.6% of any variations in CPM (Calculated Mean). So, we have estimates values for IDGRP, AGRP,
and the interaction through this test, which shows how they affect the dependent variables.
3.5 Regression Analysis

Regression Analysis for Neutrogena | Young

Model Summary
Model R R Square
1 0.472 0.222
ANOVA
Model Sig. (p<0.05)
Regression 0.033
Coefficients
Variable Beta Sig. (p<0.05)
(Constant) - 0
IV -0.471 0.01
Mod 0.007 0.969
Table 6: Regression Table (IDGRP = 1 | AGRP = 1)

According to Table 6, we can infer that the independent and dependent variables have a moderate
positive correlation coefficient, where, R = 0.472. Moreover, here, an R-square value of 0.222 means,
22.2% of the any change in the dependent variable will be affected by the independent variable. In
addition, the ANOVA test shows that the regression model is significant as it has a p-value of 0.033
(<0.05). This indicates that the independent variable affects or influences the dependent variables
collectively, at the very least.

In the coefficients section, we can see that the independent variable has a negative beta of -0.471, with
a p-value of 0.01 (<0.05), which makes it significant. So, we can infer that an inverse relationship
remains between the independent and dependent variables. However, the same cannot be said for the
Moderator variable which has a Beta of 0.007, which has a p-value of 0.969, making it highly
insignificant.
 Regression Analysis for Neutrogena | Old

Model Summary
Model R R Square
1 0.290 0.084
ANOVA
Model Sig. (p<0.05)
Regression 0.306
Coefficients
Variable Beta Sig. (p<0.05)
(Constant) - 0
IV -0.263 0.165
Mod -0.136 0.469
Table 7: Regression Table (IDGRP = 1 | AGRP = 2)

According to Table 7, we can infer that the independent and dependent variables have a moderate
positive correlation coefficient, where, R = 0.290. Moreover, here, an R-square value of 0.084 means,
8.4% of the any change in the dependent variable will be affected by the independent variable. In
addition, the ANOVA test shows that the regression model is insignificant as it has a p-value of 0.306
(>0.05). This indicates that the independent variable does not affect or influence the dependent variables
collectively significantly.

In the coefficients section, we can see that the independent variable has a negative beta of -0.263, with
a p-value of 0.165 (>0.05), which makes it insignificant. The same can be said for the Moderator
variable which has a Beta of -0.136, which has a p-value of 0.469, making it insignificant. However,
here the independent variable has more significance compared to the moderator variable.
 Regression Analysis for Olay | Young

Model Summary
Model R R Square
1 0.609 0.370
ANOVA
Model Sig. (p<0.05)
Regression 0.002
Coefficients
Variable Beta Sig. (p<0.05)
(Constant) - 0
IV -0.573 0.001
Mod -0.140 0.372
Table 8: Regression Table (IDGRP = 2 | AGRP = 1)

According to Table 8, we can infer that the independent and dependent variables have a moderate
positive correlation coefficient, where, R = 0.609. Moreover, here, an R-square value of 0.370 means,
37.0% of the any change in the dependent variable will be affected by the independent variable. In
addition, the ANOVA test shows that the regression model is significant as it has a p-value of 0.002
(<0.05). This indicates that the independent variable affects or influences the dependent variables
collectively, at the very least.

In the coefficients section, we can see that the independent variable has a negative beta of -0.573, with
a p-value of 0.001 (<0.05), which makes it significant. So, we can infer that an inverse relationship
remains between the independent and dependent variables. However, the same cannot be said for the
Moderator variable which has a Beta of -0.140, which has a p-value of 0.372 (>0.05), making it
insignificant.
 Regression Analysis for Olay | Old

Model Summary
Model R R Square
1 0.178 0.032
ANOVA
Model Sig. (p<0.05)
Regression 0.649
Coefficients
Variable Beta Sig. (p<0.05)
(Constant) - 0.001
IV -0.170 0.380
Mod -0.039 0.839
Table 9: Regression Table (IDGRP = 2 | AGRP = 2)

According to Table 9, we can infer that the independent and dependent variables have a positive
correlation coefficient, where, R = 0.178. Moreover, here, an R-square value of 0.032 means, 3.2% of
the any change in the dependent variable will be affected by the independent variable. In addition, the
ANOVA test shows that the regression model is insignificant as it has a p-value of 0.649 (>0.05). This
indicates that the independent. variable does not affect or influence the dependent variables collectively.

In the coefficients section, we can see that the independent variable has a negative beta of -0.170, with
a p-value of 0.380 (>0.05), which makes it insignificant. The same can be said for the Moderator
variable which has a Beta of -0.039, which has a p-value of 0.839, making it insignificant. However,
here the independent variable has more significance compared to the moderator variable.
3.6 Findings and Results

This research and analysis compared Neutrogena and Olay creams by kind and user age. The
independent variable (IV) was Neutrogena or Olay, while the dependent variable (DV) was cream
efficacy. Age was added as a mediator to examine its impact on cream type and efficacy.

First, descriptive statistics showed that answers grouped around the mean with no missing values. Some
variables had negative skewness, whereas others had positive skewness. The moderator variable and
DV4 and DV5 have normal distributions.

The dependent variables (DV1, DV2, DV3, DV4, DV5) have a significant positive correlation,
suggesting their interrelatedness. Age had little effect on cream type since the independent variable and
moderator variable (age) had a low correlation.

One-sample t-tests examined the mean differences between IDGRP 1 (Neutrogena) and IDGRP 2 (Olay)
and AGRP 1 (young) and AGRP 2 (aged). Neutrogena and Olay had significantly different mean
efficacy scores, as did young and elderly age groups.

Univariate testing compared Neutrogena and Olay for young and elderly age groups. Neutrogena earned
greater efficacy ratings in the senior category and Olay in the young section.

Heterogeneity testing showed that Neutrogena and Olay groups and young and elderly age groups were
homogeneous.

Between-subjects effects studies explored how the cream type-age interaction affected the dependent
variables. The revised models were negligible, indicating that independent factors did not significantly
impact dependent variables. F-values and R-square values showed how much variance the independent
variables explained despite the negligible p-values.

Cream type and age group regression analysis were done independently. Most independent factors
demonstrated modest positive correlation coefficients with dependent variables. R-square values
showed the percentage of dependent variable variance explained by independent factors. Some
regression models were significant in ANOVA testing, demonstrating that the independent factors
jointly affected the dependent variables.

The independent variable (cream type) exhibited substantial negative betas in several cases, showing
an inverse association with cream efficacy. The moderator variable (age) exhibited low betas,
suggesting it had minimal effect on the cream type-effectiveness connection.

In conclusion, Neutrogena was more beneficial for older people than Olay for younger people. The
cream type-effectiveness connection was unaffected by age. Regression analysis illuminated the
independent variables' variation.
4. Conclusion
As per our findings, both young and old people favor Neutrogena. This means that the brand has a
diverse customer base across various age ranges, which is a plus for Neutrogena. They should continue
to promote to both young and old customers, highlighting the brand's capacity to meet the needs of
different age groups.

We also found out older people who use Neutrogena products are more satisfied than the younger
people. Besides promoting to both the young and old customers, Neutrogena should expand their
product line for the older customer base as they have more preferability for Neutrogena. To maintain
the retention rate and in order to increase it further they need to tap into the popularity among the older
people. R&D should focus on other skin related solutions for the older customer base. On the other side,
they can also work on improving the retention rate of the younger consumers in order to match with the
older customer base. Neutrogena can appeal to young people by focusing on its products' ability to help
them achieve clear, healthy skin. The brand can also partner with social media influencers and other
young celebrities to promote its products. To appeal to older people, they can go forward by focusing
on its products' ability to help them reduce the appearance of wrinkles and age spots. The brand can
also partner with dermatologists and other medical professionals to promote its products.

Customers place a high value on skin sensitivity while selecting skincare products. Neutrogena should
continue to emphasize its dedication to producing products designed exclusively for sensitive skin. The
brand should invest in R&D to improve its offerings, ensuring that they are dermatologically tested,
hypoallergenic, and devoid of common skin irritants. Neutrogena's experience in resolving skin
sensitivity concerns should be highlighted in marketing initiatives, with the goal of building confidence
and loyalty among consumers who value mild skincare products. Neutrogena should continue to target
both young and old customers, extend its options for older people, and keep a strong focus on producing
products for sensitive skin. Neutrogena may leverage its current popularity, improve consumer
happiness, and recruit a larger customer base by applying these techniques.
5. Appendix
Contribution Chart

Name NSUID Contribution

Results and Analysis,
Shah Nafis Ahammed 1931064030
Compilation
Reeti Biswas 1921410030 Introduction
Md. Nabid Adnan Bin Anwar 1921435630 Conclusion
Raisa Reaz 1921809030 Abstract
Md. Ashikur Rahman 1921884030 Methodology
0121345ÿ7897ÿ ÿÿÿ

      ÿ   ÿ        ÿ    

WXYZÿZX\]^ÿZ_]`abÿ^]YaZÿ^\ÿ_cda]Z^ecdÿfXYgXÿec^YDehaYchÿg]aeiÿb\_ÿj]aka]ÿecdÿfXbÿb\_ÿd\ÿ
Z\6
lÿmcdYge^aZÿ]an_Y]adÿn_aZ^Y\c

56 0ÿ""ÿ!)ÿ"ÿÿ)3l
789:ÿ<=>?ÿ<=@ÿ<A8>B
5CDEF
EGDHI

JKLMNOPÿJROSRTUVT

911!"#""$#"1" 1!17%%& 3%'()*2+,'-. *//40..12/&1!3$47 710

0121345ÿ7897ÿ ÿÿÿ
56789:;ÿ=>?:6@A;@7B
CDEFGHIDJKÿMGNOPDÿQIDÿRDOKNGÿSGDKTÿKUUGDVVDVÿWGNJXPDVYÿEJDZDJÿVXNJÿFHJDYÿKJUÿPHVVÿH[ÿ
\GTJDVV]ÿ^D_NJHPÿKJUÿZNFKTNJÿSÿNJÿF`NVÿPHFNHJÿUNTNJNV`ÿ\JDÿWGNJXPDVYÿNJaGDKVDÿVXNJÿVEOOPDJDVVYÿ
KJUÿPDZDPÿVXNJÿFHJD]ÿbFÿUDDOPcÿ̀cUGKFDVÿVXNJYÿTKXNJIÿNFÿVDDTÿcHEJIDGÿKJUÿVTHHF`DG]
M`DÿdPKcÿRDIDJDGNVFÿSGDKTÿNVÿWDPPeGDIKGUDU]ÿCNKaNJKTNUDYÿODOFNUDVYÿKJUÿ̀cKPEGHJNaÿKaNUÿNJÿF`NVÿ
aGDKTÿOGH[HEJUPcÿ̀cUGKFDYÿGDIDJDGKFDÿVXNJÿaDPPVYÿKJUÿUNTNJNV`ÿ\JDÿPNJDVÿKJUÿWGNJXPDV]ÿbFÿ
NTOGHZDVÿVXNJÿ\GTJDVVÿKJUÿDPKVFNaNFcYÿTKXNJIÿNFÿVTHHF`DGÿKJUÿcHEJIDG]

f] ÿ$""/ÿÿÿ/ÿ!ÿ)5ÿxÿÿ."ÿ"ÿy$#z
ghijÿlmnoÿlmpÿlqhnr
^NI`PcÿsNVKIGDD

w
^NI`PcÿQIGDD

911!"#""$#"1" 1!17%%& 3%'()*2+,'-. *//40..12/&1!3$47 310

0121345ÿ7897ÿ ÿÿÿ
56 Tÿÿ."ÿ"ÿU$ÿ"ÿÿ"ÿ/#V
789:ÿ<=>?ÿ<=@ÿ<A8>B
CDEFGHÿJDKLEMNN

R
CDEFGHÿSEMNN

Q6 Tÿÿ."ÿ"ÿU$ÿ"ÿ!ÿW/$#V
789:ÿ<=>?ÿ<=@ÿ<A8>B
CDEFGHÿJDKLEMNN

R
CDEFGHÿSEMNN

911!"#""$#"1" 1!17%%& 3%'()*2+,'-. *//40..12/&1!3$47 410

0121345ÿ7897ÿ ÿÿÿ
67 Vÿÿ."ÿ"ÿW$ÿ"ÿÿ/ÿ$"X#Y
89:;ÿ=>?@ÿ=>Aÿ=B9?C
DEFGHIÿKELMFNOO

6
DEFGHIÿTFNOO

U7 Vÿÿ."ÿ"ÿW$ÿ"ÿÿ/#Y
89:;ÿ=>?@ÿ=>Aÿ=B9?C
DEFGHIÿKELMFNOO

6
DEFGHIÿTFNOO

911!"#""$#"1" 1!17%%& 3%'()*2+,'-. *//40..12/&1!3$47 510

0121345ÿ7897ÿ ÿÿÿ
56 Vÿÿ."ÿ"ÿW$ÿ"ÿÿ""#
789:ÿ<=>?ÿ<=@ÿ<A8>B
CDEFGHÿJDKLEMNN

S
CDEFGHÿTEMNN

U6 Vÿÿ."ÿ"ÿW$5ÿXÿÿ$!ÿ)ÿÿ#
789:ÿ<=>?ÿ<=@ÿ<A8>B
CDEFGHÿJDKLEMNN

S
CDEFGHÿTEMNN

911!"#""$#"1" 1!17%%& 3%'()*2+,'-. *//40..12/&1!3$47 10

0121345ÿ7897ÿ ÿÿÿ

911!"#""$#"1" 1!17%%& 3%'()*2+,'-. *//40..12/&1!3$47 010