mikkey wrote:
Crusader wrote:
mikkey wrote:
A few points:
1) When you do surveys you only survey the total group if the group is small. In Carlton case a 3-500 big sample will give you statistical representative results.
2) The Club might not have your correct email details. If they have- see point 1.
3) The survey is a generic AFL survey (same questions for all clubs) paid by the AFL. The questions are however not very good from a research point of view (I am day to day involved in market research) and the survey instrument is "cheap and dirty" to save cost.
4) Don't expect to get any feedback about the results (with the recent record in regards to transperancy). I am also expecting that the negative results will be solely blamed on the on-field issues (Board will say - just win some games and they will be happy).
As someone who is around market research on a day-to-day basis, you would know that if you want to receive 3,500 respondents, you had best distribute the survey to as many candidates as possible. Otherwise the sample will be biased (i.e. not meeting minimum age/gender/member type/length of membership/etc quotas) and therefore statistically inaccurate.
Apologies if this is what you were getting at with the "cheap and dirty" call.
See my second post........
Sorry mate, read the first and couldn't be arsed waiting for the page to load (bloody Optus with their 'slow down' policy towards broadband)
I know what you're on about with the cheap & nasty stuff... The Blues office (like every other club) would be using the AFL's research supplier (for a drastically reduced fee) because the info they get back tells them exactly what they want to hear... In some cases, they have it changed to do so.
They would be too shit-scared to go back to a sponsor with research results that didn't paint a pretty picture - although something tells me that the good folk at Bertocci Hams aren't all that interested in demogra
phic
data or media exposure....
Login
Register
FAQ
