Correlation does not equal causation!

by nmwf
30 replies
With so much emphasis on testing within IM, how much emphasis does this little observation have? Does it even play a role?

I've seen attempts to associate sales with colors, site design, content length, mind control, and moon position. But does anyone take into account the possibility of no association at all? And that, perhaps, moving a web element ten pixels higher really has nothing to do with a new sale?

#justthinkingoutloud
#causation #correlation #equal
  • Profile picture of the author bigoil
    Good question.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10247979].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ksmusselman
      I never studied that, but you bring up a good question; something to think about.

      I tried everything under the sun to increase free traffic to my blog - all to no avail. In fact, even after hundreds of compliments on my blog design, look & feel, and its content, including an indie book publisher inviting me as a resident blogger on his site, Google SLAMMED my blog during the "quality content" algorithm update.

      I haven't had more than 15 visitors/day since then. Fortunately for me, this same indie publisher is correlating all of my (according to Google, less-than-quality) content into a book and I'm shutting down the blog.

      Meanwhile, the two blogs I've hardly worked on all year, the traffic INCREASED after that algorithm!!!

      Personally, I think your content has more to do with the setup of your site. As long as you keep it clean, minimalized and don't have mass quantities of ads all over the place, 'oh, the colors' may not make much of a difference. In my opinion, it's all subjective. But that's just my opinion.
      Signature
      Do You Vape? Submit a Guest Post! SmokersLogicEcigs.com
      Info Blog about Ecigs & Personal Vaporizers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248010].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Craigcmatthew
    Correlation is a quantifiable statistical concept. Correlation without causation is termed "spurious correlation". When statisticians come across situations like these, they are advised to use common sense in determining causation. Which is pretty much what people need to do with optimizing their websites.

    The only way to figure things out is to test different ideas. Sometimes traffic may increase simply because more people are searching for one of the many keywords on your site. You may attribute this traffic increase to a slight change you made in design, which is not true.
    Using common sense is the only way to get past this issue.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248045].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author professorrosado
      It's the scientific method that rules in testing.

      Testing is not had with one sale - one result is no indicator of anything.
      If you have 100 results, then you can determine that the single difference between A and B is the cause - what is there to correlate?

      Traffic is volume. Volume doesn't increase the rate of sales per 1000 visitors. Volume increases the amount of sales which, given the same elements, is determined then by the rate of sales per 1000 visitors (or whatever number you have to use to establish a rate). Even still, this number can correct itself with higher volumes, upward or downward.

      The greater the sample (1,000 - 10,000 - 100,000) the more consistent the resulting rate will be. The smaller the sample (1 - 10 - 100) the less consistent (accurate) your rate will be.

      Should testing be done for your desperate attempts at making money online? Then, in that case, you needn't waste your time. Because, what does correlate is the fact that, you do not want to invest the time and effort necessary to build up a long-term income flow which causes you to not do your research, to not verify market data, to not test every part of your sales funnel, and finally to feel that testing matters not (meaning that science and mathematics are irrelevant).

      After all, you can throw your money at paid traffic and fan your sales page - sure, you'll get sales. The issue, is that you could get more sales if your sales funnel was tested and optimized. Yes, you will be happy with $200 a month from your traffic, but someone else is making $2,000 using the same traffic that you are.

      This is the only correlation in IM.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248223].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RogozRazvan
    This is a question of liniar and non-liniar systems.

    In a liniar system, it is easy to predict how A will determine B. 1 + 1 = 2.

    However, in a non liniar system, 1 + 1 = 3151

    As humans we tend to think in liniar form. For example, I write you a sales copy, you can already think about the money coming in. This is a liniar system.

    However, a non-liniar system is the fact that the copy will interact with your traffic, product, market conditions, etc therefore the result will be more unpredictable.

    PPC tends to be a rather liniar system. SEO tends to be non-liniar.

    In a liniar system input equals output - loss. In a non-liniar system the output can be very different to the input doing to other systems interacting with it.

    The human body is another good example. Every organ serves a purpose. Your lungs helps you breathe. Your hearth keeps the blood traveling through your body.Taken aside, they are all liniar system, causal systems where A -> B. But in the moment they interact with each other, a small change in any of the organs can cause a catastrophic change in the others.

    Hope that makes sense.

    And to answer your question directly - if you test everything in a vacuum, in theory, you can see how it affects your site. However, in the moment you test everything as a set of systems that are interconnected, then the results are not predictable anymore or at least not as predictable as when testing a single thing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248154].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author professorrosado
      Originally Posted by RogozRazvan View Post

      However, in the moment you test everything as a set of systems that are interconnected, then the results are not predictable anymore or at least not as predictable as when testing a single thing.
      The testing advised by many in IM is "live" testing - sending traffic to your landing page and measuring the results of version "A" and version "B".
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248228].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author RogozRazvan
        Originally Posted by professorrosado View Post

        The testing advised by many in IM is "live" testing - sending traffic to your landing page and measuring the results of version "A" and version "B".
        Yes, that's split testing.

        For example, testing one headline against the other or one lead copy against the others.

        However, multi-variate testing is a bit more complicated.

        If you change only one element and the same remains exactly the same, then you can at least assume which will work better (based on results). But what if you change five elements at the same time? What if you have variation A, B, C, D, E?

        This is the challenge of multi-variate testing.

        If you do simple split testing maybe A, B, C, D works but E decreases conversion. Or maybe A, B, C, D fail but E boosts conversion by 80% compared to the other test.

        In a non liniar system, you need either a strong algorithm to determine what works and what doesn't or you need to isolate the elements in such a manner to determine their individual results.

        Yet, this brings another challenge. Maybe A brings a score of 4 and B brings a score of 4. Taken individually, both have a score of 8. But if put together, they may have a score of 20.

        This is why non-liniar systems are so challenging, in business, marketing and everything else. In practice, you can test with an infinite number of variations using machine learning but you would also need an infinite number of visitors to validate each assumption.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248480].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author professorrosado
          Originally Posted by RogozRazvan View Post

          Yes, that's split testing.

          This is why non-liniar systems are so challenging, in business, marketing and everything else. In practice, you can test with an infinite number of variations using machine learning but you would also need an infinite number of visitors to validate each assumption.
          Yes, you are right. However, business has long solved this problem with ROI.
          Simply, the goals of business is to achieve ROI. So business is happy when the ROI justifies the investment.

          We can't go on "ad infinitum" because this is not the goal of business - it may be for science and mathematics.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249141].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author RogozRazvan
            Originally Posted by professorrosado View Post

            Yes, you are right. However, business has long solved this problem with ROI.
            Simply, the goals of business is to achieve ROI. So business is happy when the ROI justifies the investment.

            We can't go on "ad infinitum" because this is not the goal of business - it may be for science and mathematics.
            ROI in this case is defined as efficiency and it doesn't answer the question.

            Let's say that I'm putting one hour of work.

            If I post on WF, this hour may be worth $10/hour in indirect benefits. If I work on a copy, it is worth $100/hour. In a liniar system, it will always be the same, WF = $10/h, Copy = $100/h.

            But in a non-liniar system, posting on WF may attract the attention of someone who in the end will bring me $1000/hour.

            We make assumptions about what it is going to work and what is not. These assumptions tend to be accurate in a stable system. However, in a system where multiple elements interact with each other, what we consider a good decision (and was proven to be good in the past) can be bad.

            This is why the key to optimizing marketing campaigns is machine learning. Just like a computer can learn how to play tic tac toe in order to maximize the chances of success through trial and error, so a marketer can learn how to use certain elements and most importantly, combinations of elements, to maximize success. Yet, the same marketer must be aware that what worked one year ago may be useless now so in the end, marketing becomes a process of constant testing.

            In a way, machine learning is similar to how we as humans tend to learn.

            We learn that if we touch something that is hot, we'll get burned. If we get burned, it will hurt and we'll not touch it again. There was an example in Ogilvy on Advertising on how huge databases of what works and doesn't in advertising are kept. While these are not perfect (due to changing circumstances), they are better than going random.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249761].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kabbas
    There is no one cause behind any sale, only the culmination of all the different factos playing in the equation.

    For example: You want some to equal 9 to make sale. 1+1+2+3+1+1= 9
    If you remove any of the numbers you end up with 8 which is not a sale. Kind of like a prospect is so close to buying but is not actually doing it because he need that extra push.

    Now imagine a squeeze page or a website as a gigantic equation with thousands of numbers. Most times the reason a prospect does not want to buy is because they want everything to look perfect, and as soon a one thing doesn't, they have an excuse to not sign up for a newsletter or buy a product.

    Now, a prospect may not notice the small imperfection (10 pixels up or down), but why risk it?

    PS: It's the little things that matter

    - Kabbas
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248506].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seobro
    Back in the internet early years... my boss told me that my BIG red [BUY] button was just too garish, and that he wanted a smaller one. He created a small pale little button that he said looked more pro. Well, our sales were cut in half and he was screaming - put your button back in. Funny how customers will not click on what they do not see. Do not be subtle when SELLING is your purpose. Most of our customers did not realize that our products were on sale unless we told them in big red all cap letters - SUPER SALE... THIS WEEK ONLY!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248642].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
      Marketing as a form of communication is not a science, but an art. And, actually, if we need to apply stats to a system the available math can't deal with it in real scientific terms (as it happens in medicine by the way).

      So... adding intuition to correlations and an ability to feel the ever changing pulse of the market is what works.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248927].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author nmwf
        Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

        Marketing as a form of communication is not a science, but an art. And, actually, if we need to apply stats to a system the available math can't deal with it in real scientific terms (as it happens in medicine by the way).

        So... adding intuition to correlations and an ability to feel the ever changing pulse of the market is what works.
        Intuitive Marketing - That's a whole new ball of wax!

        And it can play a h-u-g-e role in both success and failure. It's necessary and irrelevant at the same time. Kind of like Guinan from Star Trek, the Next Generation.

        Thanks for bringing it up.
        Signature
        Write comprehensible articles on *any* topic in seconds with First Draft...
        First Draft's: Download | Add-Ons | Templates | Purchase | Support | Affiliates
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249057].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    Originally Posted by nmwf View Post

    With so much emphasis on testing within IM, how much emphasis does this little observation have? Does it even play a role?

    I've seen attempts to associate sales with colors, site design, content length, mind control, and moon position. But does anyone take into account the possibility of no association at all? And that, perhaps, moving a web element ten pixels higher really has nothing to do with a new sale?

    #justthinkingoutloud
    I used to have a fishing buddy who, on one particular trip, was having no luck at all. Everyone else on the boat was catching fish, but he was still looking at the skunk. After watching him try pretty much everything in his tackle box, the captain handed him one of the boat's standard rigs, and told him his problem was that he was holding his mouth wrong. My buddy was instructed to simply hold the rod, while twisting his mouth into some kind of psycho grin.

    You guessed it. On the very first drop, he caught a nice fish. Then another, and another.

    Long after that trip, he insisted that the only way he could catch fish was if he twisted his face into the same grin.

    While the grin, in and of itself, didn't cause my friend to catch fish, it did correlate, at least for that trip. Looking deeper, what the grin actually did was get his mind off of what he would try next and gave him something to concentrate on.

    One day, he dropped his hook and held it still, but he forgot to grin. Still caught fish. Finally realized that the cause was holding the bait in front of the fish, rather than constantly yanking it away to change something.

    Too many marketers waste time and resources testing trivia. Much better to go for the big win by testing big changes - different headlines, different offers, different value propositions.

    One more fishing story...

    Back in the late sixties and early seventies, the Lindner brothers built their company and their brand by barnstorming around the midwest, catching limits of large fish from "fished out" lakes. They knew that the lake wasn't really fished out, anglers had simply removed that part of the population that favored certain spots and methods. By using new methods in new areas of the lake, they tapped fish populations that hadn't been tapped before.

    Online, that means keep testing big things - new traffic sources, new content types, and so on.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248952].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tariqsal
    Originally Posted by nmwf View Post

    With so much emphasis on testing within IM, how much emphasis does this little observation have? Does it even play a role?

    I've seen attempts to associate sales with colors, site design, content length, mind control, and moon position. But does anyone take into account the possibility of no association at all? And that, perhaps, moving a web element ten pixels higher really has nothing to do with a new sale?

    #justthinkingoutloud
    When a credible person says changing the color of So-and-So button to red will show improvement, or move a box slightly to the left/right to see changes, they say it because they've probably tested its ability to deliver consistent results.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249006].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by Tariqsal View Post

      When a credible person says changing the color of So-and-So button to red will show improvement, or move a box slightly to the left/right to see changes, they say it because they've probably tested its ability to deliver consistent results.
      They've likely tested its ability to deliver results with their combination of offers and visitors. There's no guarantee you will see the same results.

      As the car makers like to say, "your mileage may vary."

      And the stock sellers, "past performance does not guarantee future results."

      While you didn't say it, a lot of marketers follow the monkey see monkey do method. They see a gaggle of IM gooroos do something, and assume they're seeing the winning result of testing. Given that for every A/B test, half of the people see the losing result, that can be a very dangerous assumption.

      Don't just assume something will work. Try it. Then try to beat it. If you can't, great. If you can, also great. But you never know if you don't try.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249036].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author shamiur
    hi i am shamiur.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249059].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve B
    Originally Posted by nmwf View Post

    With so much emphasis on testing within IM

    My experience with IMers suggests there is very little real emphasis on testing within the industry.

    Sure, lots of people talk about it and suggest it because it makes perfect sense, but I doubt that very many IMers actually even attempt to test anything in their marketing except maybe a few different traffic sources.

    Most newcomers to IM try something and if it doesn't work out, they are off trying something else completely different.

    For effective but simple marketing tests to be worthwhile (valid), you must keep all variables constant except for the one being tested . . . and you must have a statistically valid sample size.

    How many marketers really understand the whole test - track - tweak process? Most don't . . . so they don't take advantage of it.

    If you don't think testing is important, what better way is there to optimize a marketing campaign? Or are you saying it's just best to let the chips fall where they may?

    Steve
    Signature

    Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
    SteveBrowneDirect

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249071].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author webmarketer
      What's the probability of a test's success based upon empirical data compared with the probability of success of a test based upon nothing?

      Whatever your choice is, Murphy still prevails--"If anything could go wrong, it will." And it can.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249120].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author professorrosado
    Originally Posted by nmwf View Post

    I've seen attempts to associate sales with colors, site design, content length, mind control, and moon position. But does anyone take into account the possibility of no association at all? And that, perhaps, moving a web element ten pixels higher really has nothing to do with a new sale?
    #justthinkingoutloud
    Yes, they do it all the time. Most IMers prove that not changing anything at all on their Sales Funnels results in no sales!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249148].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      But correlation certainly does imply causation, particularly when this involves large numbers, or statistically consistent data. This is a basic foundation of the scientific method (and BTW in the professions of marketing and copy writing as well), which often is the basis for an underlying hypothesis wherein every possible causative relationship is systematically explored and tested. To ignore correlation as if it does not suggest causation at all can be just as fallacious as assuming causation. Small changes in the nuances of marketing (ie wording, colors, content length, grammar, style, etc) can and do correlate with causation - often with major consequences.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249431].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        But correlation certainly does imply causation, particularly when this involves large numbers, or statistically consistent data. This is a basic foundation of the scientific method
        Sorry, not true.

        Correlation sometimes imply causation, sometimes they are both consequence of the same underlying cause, and sometimes are not connected at all.

        But, I'm not particularly worried about that.

        What did call my eye was the part in bold (my addition). Statistics have nothing to do with the scientific method. Statistics are used when the theory or the math is lacking to describe a phenomenon and we need to resort to empirical laws. Empirical laws are never fundamental.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249485].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

          Statistics have nothing to do with the scientific method.
          ROFLMAO! Statistical data is a fundamental part of the scientific method, for example when collecting and organizing empirical facts to form a hypothesis. It is also essential for testing and validating the hypothesis itself.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249613].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            ROFLMAO! Statistical data is a fundamental part of the scientific method, for example when collecting and organizing empirical facts to form a hypothesis. It is also essential for testing and validating the hypothesis itself.
            NOPE. The scientific method states:

            1. hypothesis: we depart from a non debatable fundamental true (an observation that happens 100% of the time with no failure)
            2. thesis: we derive theorems and corollaries (consequences of that hypothesis) using logic inference
            3. : validation: we check the found consequences with the experiment
            If the consequence agrees with the experiment we keep the theory
            If we find ONE counter example, then the theory is considered flawed.
            If a theory is flawed we find the borders of the theory (region where it does apply) or discard it altogether

            As you probably already noticed, statistics deals with systems that are inherently flawed (the validity is given in percentages and you need ONE counter example to consider a theory pretty much useless).

            Truth is: stats were added to economic papers because they made them look more accurate to the untrained eye. It's all just bs.

            What does worry me is that the same is being done in medicine, and public health policy chosen as consequence.

            If I remember right (it's been 15 years since I stopped working as a physicist), originally statistics was developed for gambling, and then used to ease the transition between quantum theory and thermodynamics, because when big aggregation of molecules come to play things get really bizarre to deal with from the microscopic standpoint.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10249895].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

              It's all just bs.
              Oh really, now.

              First of all, there is no such thing as a "non debatable fundamental truth (an observation that happens 100% of the time with no failure)". For example, in some circles of physics even the "fundamental truth" of gravity is flawed, because it fails relative to so-called "known" fundamental conditions of quantum mechanics. Gravity itself is still only a scientific theory, of which statistics form an integral component for observable and theoretical characteristics to form high probability hypotheses.

              And being a physicist, you should have known that many experiments deal with complex or difficult to measure phenomena. As such, determining what a sample set of observations tells us about a proposed explanation or hypothesis in general requires us to make an inference, or as we statisticians call it, to "Reason With Uncertainty". You perhaps have worked with at least one such statistical method, such as the method of least squares (or should know it), which is commonly used by scientists to minimize errors in data measurement.

              Reasoning with uncertainty is the core of statistical inference and is typically done using a method called Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST). I agree that undeviating replication IS required in order to make a firm conclusion, however almost all pure science is theoretical - precisely due to variances in empirical data and limitations of observation. Also generally known as probability analysis, this is covered in Physics 101.

              [History lesson] The use of statistical methods dates back to at least the 5th century BCE, when the Romans used it for collating censuses of the population for taxation. The earliest writing on statistics was "Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages", by Al-Kindi which gave a detailed description of how to use statistics and frequency analysis to decipher encrypted messages. An excellent summary of the essential role math and statistics played throughout history in science is "Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science", by Dick Teresi (available on Amazon or other fine book stores near you).
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250228].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
                Originally Posted by myob View Post

                Oh really, now.

                First of all, there is no such thing as a "non debatable fundamental truth (an observation that happens 100% of the time with no failure)". For example, in some circles of physics even the "fundamental truth" of gravity is flawed, because it fails relative to so-called "known" fundamental conditions of quantum mechanics. Gravity itself is still only a scientific theory, of which statistics form an integral component for observable and theoretical characteristics to form high probability hypotheses.
                Oh I know... and this is what drives science: The need to replace theories with holes with theories with less holes, that hopefully... in limit with t tending to infinite, will provide a theory that actually explains reality.

                The hypothesis are NOT necessarily true, they are ASSUMED as true as the base of the theory.

                But if a counter example is found, only one necessary, the whole thing falls apart.

                Statistics, when used to propose a hypothesis are still bs as far as the scientific method is involved. It is simple logic actually, if your assumed true is from starters true in lets say 70% of the cases, it is not a good candidate as foundation of a theory. In terms of the initial assumption the scientific method is completely black and white. A different thing is to apply stats to analyze experiments, or stipulate experimental errors.

                Thing is, the scientific method is just that: a method. It tries to explain reality, and it is pretty cool. But it is not the panacea, and it doesn't replace reality, just runs after it trying to catch up.

                What made it so wildly popular is that once a discovery is done, it is pretty much fool proof. You don't need to bring forth any special talent to make it work. Being reproducible is key. This is its strength and its weakness, because it limits the situations where it can be applied.

                That, if we stay under the umbrella of real science.

                Then we have this new fundamental religion built around the word science that has nothing to do with real science. In this case, yes, definitely statistics are as good as any other idol.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250400].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author myob
                  Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

                  Statistics, when used to propose a hypothesis are still bs as far as the scientific method is involved. It is simple logic actually, if your assumed true is from starters true in lets say 70% of the cases, it is not a good candidate as foundation of a theory. In terms of the initial assumption the scientific method is completely black and white. A different thing is to apply stats to analyze experiments, or stipulate experimental errors.

                  Thing is, the scientific method is just that: a method. It tries to explain reality, and it is pretty cool. But it is not the panacea, and it doesn't replace reality, just runs after it trying to catch up.

                  What made it so wildly popular is that once a discovery is done, it is pretty much fool proof. You don't need to bring forth any special talent to make it work. Being reproducible is key. This is its strength and its weakness, because it limits the situations where it can be applied.

                  That, if we stay under the umbrella of real science.

                  Then we have this new fundamental religion built around the word science that has nothing to do with real science. In this case, yes, definitely statistics are as good as any other idol.


                  Perhaps here is something that may be of interest to you. The role of statistics was an essential part in the formulation of the hypothesis in physics for the God particle:
                  The role of Statistics in the Higgs Boson discovery

                  The recent confirmation of its existence showed that it behaves just as predicted more than 40 years ago:
                  CERN: Test results show more detail about 'God particle'
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10254595].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Complex
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250416].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
      Originally Posted by Complex View Post

      Sandra,

      You are not even arguing with a real person. MYOB is as real as Alexa Smith was. Don't waste your time. Whomever it is behind that handle would have you believe that they are an elite economist, a $ 500 million a year affiliate, an expert in publishing at a level that would be larger than Rodale ... you get the point?

      P.S. Correlative data gives us a reason to test further. That's it. From a scientific point-of-view.
      Thanks

      I know. I don't engage because I believe the persona. I do it for the sake of others.

      Alexa is fun though, and real enough. In the past there was one lady even funnier, Laura Miller was the name. I did the tech part for that project.

      Agree with the P.S.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250501].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author quadagon
    One thing that people don't often highlight is the need to be careful what variables you test. A variable can be related to another variable but not causally.

    For example sales of woolly mittens (variable a) no of snow men built (variable b). Statistically you could find a correlation between to the two. This could lead to the false assumption that to sell more mittens we should build more snow men.

    The two aren't causally linked. The causal link here would be the amount of snow.

    I'd assume in my hypothetical that their would also be a point of elasticity as well.

    Another thing that you see in real marketing is to get results validated by retesting and peer review much like in science. When was the last time an IMer did this?

    Instead its a jump to this happened because I did this and for £1997 I will sell it to you.
    Signature
    I've got 99 problems but a niche ain't one
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250451].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by Complex View Post

      Sandra,

      You are not even arguing with a real person. MYOB is as real as Alexa Smith was. Don't waste your time. Whomever it is behind that handle would have you believe that they are an elite economist, a $ 500 million a year affiliate, an expert in publishing at a level that would be larger than Rodale ... you get the point?
      As I recall, that so-called hypothetical person behind the MYOB handle has never made a claim to making $500 million a year as an affiliate, despite repeated assertions. Check the original sources again, and see if they match up with your hypothesis.

      Originally Posted by Complex View Post

      P.S. Correlative data gives us a reason to test further. That's it. From a scientific point-of-view.
      Wow, with such rigorous critical thinking and analytical skills, there is a chance for you to become a real scientist, just like Sandra was.

      Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

      I do it for the sake of others.
      This is known widely among specifically targeted audiences as the MYOB method.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250975].message }}

Trending Topics