OT: If it were a poll ...

[T i m]

Just wondering ...

If you were doing some market research on a new product you were considering spending considerable amounts of money bringing to market (with considerable risk to the jobs of your workers if the launch went wrong) and you went out on the street and polled 33 people ...

If 16 people came back saying 'No' and 17 people said 'Yes', would still you go ahead with the product launch?

Specifically, would you consider that 'a unanimous vote in favour'?

Would you launch anyway thinking that poll in any way reflected a positive view of most of the population or would you go back, modify your product, re-poll and only risk a launch when there was a much greater demonstration of positive support (assuming you wanted your product to be a winner that is)?

Cheers, T i m

[tony sayer]

In article , T i m scribeth thus

So how else would you do it?,

and were do you set the leave/stay criteria then?...

[Tim Watts]

First I'd fire myself or my market researchers for choosing a poor sample size!

;) OK that was a joke, I knew what you meant!

I think that would be fine for a product launch. Over half the people surveyed said they would buy one - hell yes.

But it's not really comparable to the BREXIT referedum. You could launch a product on 20% or less if it were a niche product.

Remember that most people with a smart phone have either Apple or Android with a small number of MS. That's less than 50% for each of the two most successful platforms.

[Fredxxx]

Would you advocate leave if the reverse was true?

Yes, more that sufficient for Brexit.

Only if I was a sore loser.

[Adrian]

Point of order, Sir.

46 people were asked. 17 said "Yes", 16 said "No", 13 said "Whatever".

Umm, "unanimous"...?

[Capitol]

I'd go ahead with the product launch even with 16 in favour because nearly 50% of the people wanted the product. That's good enough to keep my staff in work. The other point is that 90% of all product launches are failures, so there's always risk. Over 50% is a no brainer.

[T i m]

Hey, I didn't say I had the answers Tony, I was just questioning the validity / appropriateness of what we have. ;-)

That said, I think some system that clearly demonstrated it was the voice of the majority, not nearer 50:50, given how the consequences do affect ALL of us.

Why can't it be phased ... several questions (polls) over a period of time with a vote at the end, hopefully when more of the facts (and especially the impact / consequences) are known.

I'm sure others could better propose the sort of questions that would be appropriate than me. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[John Rumm]

It seems like a false dichotomy... you are not asking the right question.

Of course you would.

Now how do you cope with the situation where you don't actually make the product yourself, and every conversation you have had with the OEM about alternative designs has only resulted in "no we can't change it" so "take it or leave it" type of response. You are now stuck with carrying on buying the sub optimal product, looking for a different OEM, or bringing the design and manufacturing in house.

[T i m]

Quite!

Good.

I'm guessing you would have to know the potential market value and know if you were able to capture only 50% of it you would cover your costs or (hopefully) make a profit?

Understood. It was really just an exercise in 'what would be considered enough'.

Sure, but *massive* markets for both meaning they can both make good profits.

I think what I mentioned elsewhere since would be a better analogy for the whole Brexit discussion and parallels what Tony Blair (I think it was) was saying on TV this morning.

Someone offers you a new (to you) house but tells you little about it. You can have it but once you have accepted it (sight unseen) you can't go back to your old house.

What percentage of people would go for it do you think?

Mine was polling people on a product you are about to produce but without telling them what it was, what it did or what it was going to cost and then if 17 out of 33 people said 'Yes', manufacturing them and forcing everyone to have one!

Most people *could* be happy but that's a pretty indeterminate *could* and I'm pretty sure not something 'The Dragons' would buy into. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

I wouldn't advocate either (especially on behalf of others) with so little margin!

Hmmm.

Thanks for playing then. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

ONLY if the market was big enough.

See above (if you use your brains). ;-)

Selling 10 of a 10,000 pound item into a market that can only support

20 may not recover your total costs. Selling 7 might.

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Ok ...

Not in my poll they didn't. ;-)

But whilst I take your point, I have been told that it's only the

*actual* votes for Yes or No count?

Well, ok, I was trying to see if people did consider what is a nearly

50:50 split to count as if it was a unanimous decision (and I believe some do).

They say that 51/49 result gives a majority (of 2) and that then represents the will of everyone (when from a RW POV it clearly doesn't).

I don't know what I could suggest to do differently but don't feel that method is right in this sort of situation?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Yeah, I've though that since. ;-(

Was that answering the latter part of that para John?

True (if you are suggesting that's what the EU was to us)?

So, you know all about the in-house option (as you control it) but you don't know if you will then still have access to the components, sufficient workers, an easily accessible market or will still make a profit with all those unknown costs? You also have to remember to comply with all the different standards across that market, like you did before?

I think TB's 'You (and everyone else) are offered to move to a new house but are told nothing of it and you can't go back if you accept' scenario might be better. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Tim Watts]

That's a very interesting scenario.

How about:

You live in a nice house with an abusive partner. If you choose divorce, you have to move and you may or may not get a great settlement but at least you are able to determine your own life.

That's how I feel about the EU.

[harry]

Your usual standard of drivel. The accuracy of a poll depends on the group of people selected to be asked. The most accurate poll is where everyone is asked.

ie A referendum.

[The Natural Philosopher]

And my ex-marriage...:-)

[T i m]

I thought so too. ;-)

But we don't do we? It might be more like 'an abusive neighbour' but many of the other neighbours seem to get on with them ok (given it's seldom perfect)?

Or ... you move away from your abusive neighbour then find you can't get a job, or the shops are worse (less selection, insufficient staff).

Do you think my version could be more applicable?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Thanks, I like to keep up standards. ;-)

Bingo!

Well done ... except this wasn't a poll it was a vote, and expecting people you stop and ask in the street to apply loads more effort (in extracting the facts from the BS, assuming there are any facts) to vote, less likely to yield an accurate and representative outcome than the drive by Yes / No would for their 'instant' *opinion*.

Have you never been asked to answer a question involving a decision only to regret the decision when it actually comes to it?

Ask an adult to explain it to you. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Andy Burns]

They're all examples of situations which people can "have too much of", feel they can't change their situation without going beyond what they would normally do in order to "make a break" ...

[dennis]

And you drag a stranger out of his house at the same time is how I feel about it.