yup, the second chart got messed up, he was doing a running total in the second list to show that people who were willing to pay more than $80 also included people who were willing to pay more than $90.
Only problem is he extended that to the FULL total of people voting, which should have remained at 6116, instead of becoming 10540. He also messed up on teh running total somehow, cause a couple numbers go down where they should be continuing to go up.

This also threw off his percentages, since he was doing teh calculations based off of the running total and then teh final total (which is being shown as 10540 instead of 6116) I'll put the actual percentages up in just a second

<100 = 456 = 7.46%

<90   = 913 = 14.93%

<80   =  2290 = 37.44%

<70   =  3449 = 56.39%

<60   =  4424 = 72.33%

< 50   =  6116 = 100.00%

So it can be seen that only 27.67% would not be willing to pay more than $50 for Wii Fit, where as 37.44% would be willing to pay as much as $80 

we need acual consumers who will buy this game.. not some poll infested with trolls.

lol

Actually it seems that cell B2 of the second table, which contains "913" adds B1 and B2 of the first table and this formula was dragged down to B6. In other words the cells simply add two price ranges instead of everything above.

 Here's a fixed version of that second chart.  So as it shows, 56% of respondants would buy the game if it were priced for $70 or less.  In other words, $70 is too expensive for 44% of respondants.

yu cna suc my analysis.c haha, jusy kiddin. I'm very sorry.

horrible article

a) 27% isn't a majority

b) major sample bias: people on ign are not wii fit's target audience

wii fit will be 79.99 and sell 10s of millions

Edited the original post, I was using "=Sum(B3:B4)" for the second row of the second table and copied it onto the rest of the cells in the column but neglected to adjust them individually after getting sidetracked.

@Grey Acumen & Tyrone,

Your raw numbers are correct but I was going another way with the percentages. Neither is wrong but I was trying to show something different than you two were.  Especially with Grey some of what you thought was a mistake was actually me trying to show the data in a different format than what you were expecting.

Actually I still don't understand the second chart. What are you trying to show?

The percentage of each category based on the running total. It is essentially a weighting for the fact that people would prefer to spend less. So the percentage is calculated as though each person voted for their category and every category less than theirs.

edit: Its fair to say my explanation of what I was going for was "lite", I'm going to add the chart Grey put together in my formatting and see if I can play with the column labels to make it a bit easier to follow.

Ah it makes sense.