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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.