• Share this on Facebook | Twitter

Comments & Reviews

April 5, 2007 | eljefe

This one has been bugging me and I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the "non-response bias". I do think 235 out of a population of 3500 is enough PROVIDED those 235 were sampled randomly. Instead they "self selected".

So I think all you can really do with this "data" is engage in "if this is true, what could it mean?" conjectures...

Like: "TR sales are down 18%". Perhaps sales are down only in TRs that have the time to mess with surveys, while the others are too busy selling wine...;-)

Or maybe it means that consumers are tired of the "key wine regions" and are looking for something new...?

April 5, 2007 | Ryan Fujiu

Its hard to take their results seriously when they are selectively reporting information and have an obvious agenda (they are a consumer direct company). Its one thing to disclose that information, but looking at the executive summary, they did nothing of the sort. Maybe the disclosure is on the full report; I wonder if they have anything to say about the situation.

April 5, 2007 | Jessica Diamond

Yeah, I've heard people talking about this and was wondering about these things. I don't work in the wine industry, but it seems a bit fishy. I wonder what's really going on?

You must login to comment.

  • Share this on Facebook | Twitter