By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Akvod on 24 May 2013
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Akvod said:
Kasz216 said:
Akvod said:
Kasz216 said:
Akvod said:  

Did you seriously just make up a chart... 

my old statistics and research teachers would be throwing a fit right now.

Why? I'll find it pretty sad if they expected me to have done some expensive professional marketing research, and couldn't see the conceptual point I'm making with the graph.


It's an inherently deceptive tactic that misuses statistics.

Graphs are a whole different thing from simple word demonstrations, and using a graph with made up variables is inherently dishonest.

The correct way to use a graph conceptually  would use data from something else in the same situation or something completely unrelated so as to not create undue bias.

Using a fake graph like that is basic unintended propaganda.  It does little extra to explain your point and only leads to bias people towards your way of thinking via the variables you've chosen for each thing.  In general people put a lot more faith in graphs even when explicitly told their fake.  

Which you never actually did in your post, you just kind of threw up a bar graph and let people decide whether it was real or not.  You never even really hinted at it being fake.  Relying on people assuming that research like that hadn't been done somewhere.

 

For example, a graph like that suggests gamers care far more about ram then the average consumer does.  (It's actualy probably quite the opposite, since it's ease of switching is likely one of the most impressive features to casuals, and all that multimedia needs a lot of ram to be fast.  Though it's beside the point.)

 

 

 

"Misuse statistic"? I'm not even using statistics. There's no actual dollar amounts, the variables are just randomly thrown in there.

Again, it'll be pretty sad if you couldn't see that I'm just illustrating the concept that Microsoft is straddling two different consumers with the gaming and non-gaming features not really overlapping with those two segments.

You could disagree with that conceptual point, but again:

1) You and other people were easily able to tell that it's not a real research

2) I never claimed it was, and didn't emphasize the numbers to support my arguments

 

Again, you're just creating a false issue. Nobody in this thread has believed that I somehow managed to pull off research that would cost thousands of dollar in such a short amount of time. Rather than maybe address the main meat of my post.

and that's the problem.  I understood what your doing.  It's just that it's about the first thing most statistics and research proffesors will tell you NOT to do, and will immediatly smack you on the nose with a newspaper for doing.  It's inherently deceptive.  (And dangerous in a world where a lot of people search via images for graphs.  At the very least the image of the graph should have fake data listed somewhere.)

Also, you never claimed it wasn't real research.  Simply just assumed people knew it wasn't.  All in all, it's something you should never do.  

I'm sensitive about these things as i must of had nearly a dozen statistics classes and programs and have done actual real world consumer marketing research. 

(It can cost much less then you think.)

 

As for the meat of your post?   I don't actually disagree.  The only caveat I'd mention your made up numbers could be way off.  Espiecally if the Xbox One isn't seen primarily as a Games console.  Which, I wouldn't be shocked if Microsoft marketed it as something else completely.

The Xbox One could very well be seen the same way as a Smartphone.   Where games are the minority value to the average user.    Sure if you only want a smartphone for the games.  The smartphone is a shitty gaming device.  

As a device that plays games though?

 

Perception of what your product is GREATLY affects what you will pay for features.


It's not deceptive because it's obviously thrown together very quickly, obviously not real research, and I didn't base my arguments on the numbers being true.

 

The graph is simply a more simple way of letting people understand my point:

1) I think there are two major segments: gaming and non-gaming

2) I think that the gaming and non-gaming features appeal very differently with each segment, and the WTP it adds for each group is inversely related for the most part.

3) I think that overall, the non-gaming features aren't that valuable to non-gamers, making them have a much lower WTP than gamers.

 

Instead of just saying all that, I illustrated it by making a hypothetical graph. Again, I don't even have anything on the Y-axis. I just have fucking numbers there for Christ sake, and only because I was too lazy to get rid of the axis labels. It's not even dollars. That's why I'm saying that I'm not even basing the arguments on numbers, as there aren't even any. What does "60" mean on my graph? $60???

If I got rid of the y-axis labels, would you have been happy? I'm just illustrating what I believe is the current relationship between the gaming and non-gaming features with WTP, for each group?

 

Or are you saying that you can't even use graphs to illustrate concepts?

Which brings me to another point.

 

GRAPHS =/= STATISTICS

End of fucking discussion.