| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:More support than objections | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 09/08/23 10:21:00 |
| Jeremy, the proprietor has already shown the data for 11 months of sales and although the spreadsheet quite clearly showed there were 14 weeks of non-market sales, they simply divided by 11 instead of 14 to get the non-market average. That's hardly "a complicated exposition on statistics", just dividing by the wrong number. Their data is clear - their sales and covers are up on market days. They've now down-selected to just six months of data to try to re-establish their point. The strange thing is that while their total sales on market Sundays remain similar, as they were before, now sales on non-market Sundays are very significantly higher. Of course if you select the best non-market months in a year, you can tip the scales in their favour, but it doesn't prove much. After all, the unselected months must have had much lower sales to compensate - in fact sales in those months would be nearly half in this case! "You are happy to accept without question evidence from the businesses who say takings are up so you should do the same for those who have had a different experience." Quite the opposite! For example, I've looked at data from business owners who had rather different views on the parking on TGT. One was certain the removal hurt their business, the other was agnostic. In fact both their year-on-year volume and sales changes agreed very well and showed no effect from the removal. But the business owner who was certain remained so, even though the evidence quite clearly showed otherwise. It does seem odd that a proprietor can be convinced that their sales are being hurt when the actual sales numbers indicate the opposite, but clearly it does happen. |