Re: foundations of relational theory?

In article <bn5s7p$1grg$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>, Paul Vernon <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> writes
>> By the way, there is *scientific* *proof* that you're wrong in assuming
>> that a dollar spent on MV buys less than a dollar spent on relational.
>
>It that buys less in 'the future' or 'on average weighted over all possible
>futures'
>
>The second could conceivably be answered by science, I'm not sure that the
>first could even in principle.

You're presuming the answer having assumed it from your prejudices ...
>
>> Admittedly there is precious little proof, but what little there is came
>> to the conclusion that a dollar spent on MV bought the same as two
>> dollars spent on relational!
>
>So marketing surveys are *scientific* *proof*, hey. Wow.

EXCEPT this was an ACADEMIC study, not a MARKETING study, and as I understand it, the researchers were surprised by the result.

They picked a bunch of large companies with the idea of calculating db spend as a proportion of turnover. No bias there. They plotted those two figures, and were surprised to get a double peak. No bias there, either.

When they investigated this unusual phenomenon, they discovered the lowspending  peak was almost entirely Pick-based dbs, the high-spending peak was relational.

I make that Science, not marketing. As for why there aren't any more studies, is it not reasonable to conclude that those studies WERE marketing studies, and got suppressed because they didn't give the wanted result?

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let 
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett