Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing in there about how widespread the taste tests were and I didn't see anything like "overwhelmingly" in the piece. Sounds a lot more like bias confirmation by a misguided marketing department.
Nothing in there about how widespread the taste tests were and I didn't see anything like "overwhelmingly" in the piece. Sounds a lot more like bias confirmation by a misguided marketing department.
Hmm.. I would take these three sentences there..
"Well, it sounded like an even better one when the results came in from a battery of taste tests utilizing the new formula. People said they liked the new Coke better than Coca-Cola or Pepsi, and by a significant factor, too. Taste for taste, it was a winner."
Whether you choose to think of "A significant factor" and "Overwhelmingly" as synonyms and whether you consider "a battery of taste tests" to be equivalent to "Widespread" is up to you.
However.. Just to satisfy...
If you want more detail on just how widespread.. 200k taste tests.
If you want the numbers.. more than half preferred New Coke over either Pepsi or Classic Coke. While we don't know the specific breakdown on the numbers.. What we do know is that if in a three-way race someone gets over 50%.. That means either one of the candidates is basically a non-factor.. See third party candidates in US Presidential Elections.. Or, one had a significant lead over the other two. I suspect this was more a 51-25-24 result than a 51-48-1
"Well, it sounded like an even better one when the results came in from a battery of taste tests utilizing the new formula. People said they liked the new Coke better than Coca-Cola or Pepsi, and by a significant factor, too. Taste for taste, it was a winner."
Whether you choose to think of "A significant factor" and "Overwhelmingly" as synonyms and whether you consider "a battery of taste tests" to be equivalent to "Widespread" is up to you.
However.. Just to satisfy...
If you want more detail on just how widespread.. 200k taste tests.
If you want the numbers.. more than half preferred New Coke over either Pepsi or Classic Coke. While we don't know the specific breakdown on the numbers.. What we do know is that if in a three-way race someone gets over 50%.. That means either one of the candidates is basically a non-factor.. See third party candidates in US Presidential Elections.. Or, one had a significant lead over the other two. I suspect this was more a 51-25-24 result than a 51-48-1
Anything else? I have a couple of good links with the scientific background proving that the sky is blue and the Earth is round.
Okay, 200,000 is a lot of blind taste tests. A whole lot of flawed taste tests according to the article you have just cited. It doesn't say what the margin of preference was, simply that more than half preferred New Coke over Coke and Pepsi. So, conceivably they preferred New Coke by 51% - 49% over Coke and by the same percentage over Pepsi.
It does not say that there was a three way test at all. Maybe some of your other sources do but this one does not it simply points out that the test subject was preferred over both of the other two. Again, it appears that those running the flawed tests and analyzing the data had a confirmation bias that was fulfilled, quite possibly with the help of the information they fed to the subjects as cited in the article.
I also don't see anything here that translates to the public responding favorably to the IDEA that the new product was better, taste notwithstanding. If anything the idea was abhorrent to loyal Coca Cola customers which makes one wonder how the test participants were identified. Two thousand subjects identified as those who had strayed from the brand might have been more valuable than a hundred times that number of people who rarely or never consumed soda.
Okay, 200,000 is a lot of blind taste tests. A whole lot of flawed taste tests according to the article you have just cited. It doesn't say what the margin of preference was, simply that more than half preferred New Coke over Coke and Pepsi. So, conceivably they preferred New Coke by 51% - 49% over Coke and by the same percentage over Pepsi.
It does not say that there was a three way test at all. Maybe some of your other sources do but this one does not it simply points out that the test subject was preferred over both of the other two. Again, it appears that those running the flawed tests and analyzing the data had a confirmation bias that was fulfilled, quite possibly with the help of the information they fed to the subjects as cited in the article.
I also don't see anything here that translates to the public responding favorably to the IDEA that the new product was better, taste notwithstanding. If anything the idea was abhorrent to loyal Coca Cola customers which makes one wonder how the test participants were identified. Two thousand subjects identified as those who had strayed from the brand might have been more valuable than a hundred times that number of people who rarely or never consumed soda.
Here is how I see the problem. People have to justify their jobs. You had this team of people working for Coke trying to come up with a new better formula. They would have been working on it probably for years. The investment of time and money was massive.
So what was this team to do? Come to their bosses and say, we are finished with the New Coke, but we have a problem. We've come up with the best possible formula we can come up with, but the taste tests are negative. People prefer the classic taste of Coke. We recommend you don't change it.
Are they gong to do that? Hell, no. The response would be, we paid you to come up with a better formula and you failed. Of course the taste tests were going to be positive. The developers made sure of that. Their jobs were on the line.
The same thing still happens today. I could come up with a long list of web companies that were wrecked by stupid changes, that users hated.
Pop gives me heartburn, and it has astonishing amounts of sugar and calories...or worse, the chemical versions they put in "diet" kinds. It's free at my office but I have one every year or so and regret it halfway through.
Pop gives me heartburn, and it has astonishing amounts of sugar and calories...or worse, the chemical versions they put in "diet" kinds. It's free at my office but I have one every year or so and regret it halfway through.
Me too, I buy "Mexican Coke" about every 2-3 months, just to enjoy the taste of good old fashioned cane sugar Coca Cola from my youth (or something that comes close anyway)!
I hate corn syrup and aspartame.
The "lite" Coke (green label) that has sugar and stevia is not bad, but it's kind of a novelty product.
Best thing however is to just drink water... from the tap... it's what we evolved to drink these past couple billion years or so.
I've never seen the green label one, but I don't buy Coke very often. I buy a sugar laden coke from Mexico every once in a while. A few local places sell them by the bottle. That's a good fit for me.
The best way to enjoy any coke is to add 2-4 ounces of whiskey to it.
I do something else... I add about 1/2 teaspoon of vanilla extract. (Safer all around that way.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
