I recently received and filled out the questionnaire that was sent to Carlton members. My responses were mostly negative because I answered the questions truthfully.

Personally, I think it was a complete waste of time by the club and nothing will come of it.

Just wanted to know know though how people responded and if anyone knows if anything has (or will) come of this questionnaire.

_________________
"Denis D. Pagan, I don't care how, Denis D. Pagan, will you please go now!”
(I'm assuming his middle name is D#$%head)

Shocking.

The questions re: players etc. were loaded but there was NOTHING about the coach, save perhaps (though thin line of reasoning could be behind it) the "rate how happy you were with the performance on-field this year".

That was one possible time we could have gone after the coach but obviously the Board (should they have the results already) did not listen to a lot of that.


:CARLTON:

_________________
"A good composer does not initiate. He steals."

- Igor Stravinsky

I’m a gold member, and have been for years....

I didn’t even receive a questioner which shows how amateurish our club is...

_________________
"Dont count the games, make the games count"

me neither..

_________________
"Two roads diverged in a wood,
and I,
I took the one less travelled by,
and that has made all the difference."

Robert Frost

me neither

_________________
Mjonc signing off at 8888

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).

Yer i understand that

However its not like they need to hunt us down, they already have our information.

I would of thought the more people who complete the survey, the more accurate there results could be... Im sure the person in recieving the information, would have more confidence in there figures, if more people
filled out the surveys.

_________________
"Dont count the games, make the games count"

Firstly, I have no idea how many members they e-mailed, and there is a chance that a lot of the emails ended up in spam filters (including at your ISP). The company which was contracted is as mentioned "cheap" and you need a relatively advanced e-mail system to ensure that the invitations do not get blocked somewhere. Also, doing a very large respondent group is not without cost, there are bounces, the import of databases etc etc. not a huge cost but as mentioned this survey is done on the cheap. Also, the survey system has to be geared for large response numbers (and cheaper online systems are not).



This is actually not true. I am not a statistics guru, but I work with one.

Normally in research a random 100 responses will give you valid results (depending on the total size of the sample). Actually if you survey 500 people out 30,000 you have about 99% statistical confidence in the results. The only reason you would survey more people is if you want to segment the result (e.g. by age group or gender). So if you want reliable results for 9-sub groups (segments) you would need 100 in each group i.e. at least 900 (depending on how even the spread is in the segments).

I hope this explains it.

Thanks mikkey, very informative.


I always seem to get surveyed by the club. I was worried it was only because I give the answers they want to hear!! (I'm not a great complainer by nature)

Family Feud surveys 100 people. The answers to things such as "name something you eat that is green" seem fairly representative. I am sure Bert wouldn't put his name to it if the data was flawed.

_________________
I support Carlton, Fulham and I'm an accountant - my mate calls me a 3 time loser.

Gotta say...........

a couple of my ex-girlfriends have had some flawed data.........!


kindest regards tommi

_________________
that'siti'mnotchangingthistagain......!

_________________
Writer for SuperCoach Paige www.scpaige.com.au
Twitter - @johnfeeney24

48% of statistics are made up.......... LOL

_________________
"Dont count the games, make the games count"

Good on the club for at least trying to find out what we think.

They dont have the resources to analyse all of your complaint emails so this may have been a better way to do it.

Snot.


How'd I do?

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

mizrachi wrote



Same here.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

top response (in Shepparton)

_________________
I support Carlton, Fulham and I'm an accountant - my mate calls me a 3 time loser.

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.

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

See my second post - no need for 3500 respondents. About 500 out of 30,000 memebrs would be representative with 99% "confidence" if selected randomly. Only bias would be that only people with email adresses are included, which creates a bias against older or "poor" members which would be under represented. This can however be statitically corrected for if demografic data is available. It should however be noted that "more" respondents is never a bad thing - especially because it gives you more data for data slicing / analysis (segmentation).

As mentioned I have no idea how the club selected respondents and how the contractor mailed it out (i.e. did a lot end up in spam filters?).

But as someone involved in research I can only say that the survey was poorly designed and the questions are very poor and with a lot of built in bias which results in crap data. The most important factor in research is which questions you ask and how you ask them. I also do not like the 7-point likert scale they used. For this type of research a 5 point-scale would be much better, and the questionnaire itself was poorly designed from a usability point of view. E.g. open text questions had a very limited space for reply.

I could go on and on. Actually thinking about having a chat with the club early next year and offer my services if they cover the technical costs - but don't expect they will be interested when they can get a quick and dirty suvey for nothing, even so its usefulness is very limited.

RE: spam filters
My email address was just a hotmail one and that ended up in junk mail so i would say that a fair few would have been blocked