Can you see anything important in this data?

Hi,

I have an interview on Tuesday and part of the interview requires me to give
a presentation focusing on their sales data for 2009/10. Here's what I
have...

Aug 2009
Turnover: 73703 100%
Purchases: 73045 99%
Salaries: 19364 26%
Costs: 8505 11%
Profit: -27214 -37%

Sep 2009
Turnover: 121810 100%
Purchases: 77717 64%
Salaries: 21399 18%
Costs: 5777 5%
Profit: 16916 14%

Oct 2009
Turnover: 251301 100%
Purchases: 174139 69%
Salaries: 24698 10%
Costs: 11060 4%
Profit: 41404 16%

Nov 2009
Turnover: 220518 100%
Purchases: 141804 64%
Salaries: 22824 10%
Costs: 8577 4%
Profit: 47313 21%

Dec 2009
Turnover: 119074 100%
Purchases: 100915 85%
Salaries: 22785 19%
Costs: 8889 7%
Profit: -13515 -11%

Aug-Dec 2009 Totals
Turnover: 786404 100%
Purchases: 567620 72%
Salaries: 111070 14%
Costs: 42811 5%
Profit: 64904 8.25% <not rounded

COMPARED WITH...

Aug 2010
Turnover: 85125 100%
Purchases: 74403 87%
Salaries: 21165 25%
Costs: 11942 14%
Profit: -22385 -26%

Sep 2010
Turnover: 130410 100%
Purchases: 100603 77%
Salaries: 22281 17%
Costs: 9154 7%
Profit: -1625 -1%

Oct 2010
Turnover: 251370 100%
Purchases: 154708 62%
Salaries: 24958 10%
Costs: 15179 6%
Profit: 56525 22%

Nov 2010
Turnover: 228718 100%
Purchases: 162573 71%
Salaries: 24380 11%
Costs: 12462 5%
Profit: 29303 13%

Dec 2010
Turnover: 126245 100%
Purchases: 75586 60%
Salaries: 23960 19%
Costs: 8266 7%
Profit: 18434 15%

Aug-Dec 2010 Totals
Turnover: 821868 100%
Purchases: 567873 69%
Salaries: 116744 14%
Costs: 57003 7%
Profit: 80249 9.76% <not rounded

....I've been trying to find some headline observation about these figures,
but to be honest they're fairly boring What I have been able to note is
the following...

1: 2009 was a poor year as 8.25% ROI is low especially when you consider
that there was 2.5% less vat to pay.

2: It's fairly obvious that these are seasonal figures that ramp up then
tail off yet their monthly staffing costs remain consistent. This makes me
think that they're not using part-time staff effectively.

3: If they could have kept their 2010 costs in line with 2009 then they
would have seen double digit profits (percent), but I do not know what is
covered by "other costs".

4: There doesn't seem to be a correlation between purchases and profit. In
2009 they ramped up their purchases and then saw an increase in profit the
following month. In 2010, they saw a profitable month then ramped up
purchases the following month.

5: Is it unreasonable to suggest a minimum target of 15% net-profit in a
retail environment?



Here's some individual sales figures they included, in case your newsreader
messes with line-wraps, the data follows this convention...

ITEM - 2009 Gross - 2009 Net - 2010 Gross - 2010 Net

Batteries / Calculators - 24447 - 21258 - 34090 - 29013
Bike Accessories - 4413 - 3837 - 3058 - 2603
Cards - 16685 - 14509 - 17043 - 14505
Cigarettes - 50917 - 44276 - 53434 - 45476
Clothing - 57886 - 50336 - 55835 - 47519
Drinks (non vat) - 5206 - 5206 - 9977 - 9977
Drinks (Vat) - 92160 - 80139 - 121714 - 103586
Gifts - 14458 - 12572 - 14570 - 12400
Grocery (non vat) - 310269 - 310269 - 316023 - 316023
Grocery (Vat) - 46182 - 40158 - 51236 - 43605
Hardware - 4175 - 3630 - 4046 - 3443
Newspapers - 34412 - 34412 - 26172 - 26172
Newspapers (vat) - 140 - 122 - 91 - 77
Pens - 13631 - 11853 - 13194 - 11229
Sports Goods - 4824 - 4195 - 3581 - 3048
Stationery - 60844 - 52908 - 61178 - 52066
Stamps - 2917 - 2537 - 3245 - 2762
Sweets (non vat) - 0 - 0 - 1146 - 1146
Sweets 5% - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2
Sweets - 84067 - 73102 - 90207 - 76772
Sanitary Wear - 1617 - 1540 - 1322 - 1259
Toiletries 5% - 125 - 119 - 148 - 141
Toiletries vat - 16059 - 13964 - 15243 - 12973
University Clothing - 4436 - 3857 - 5616 - 4780

.... I don't know how to comment on the individual sales data as I don't know
how much they spent on each item (so have no idea if profitable) or how much
shelf space is required (so have no idea if each line is viable). It would
seem that the big winners are food and sweets, but without purchase and
space-usage data they could have 80% of the store dedicated to these lines.
In case you haven't worked it out yet, this data is for a retail store in a
university setting, so I'm guessing that they retail at "student-friendly"
prices which lowers profitability but is offset by a captive audience in a
convenient location.

I'm surprised they don't offer a selection of console video games, as this
would certainly fit with the student lifestyle, may be there's too much
competition and price-cutting on the high street and online?

To wrap up, can you see something that I haven't? Something that will give
me an edge in the interview?

Many thanks


Andy