| |
Shiri Dori wrote:
>
> In lugnet.harrypotter, Paul Sinasohn writes:
> > That's us, plus all the robotic folks who bought the Mindstorms stuff as a
> > novelty experiment.
> >
> > And any company that caters to 10% of its customers won't be in business too
> > long. :-)
>
> Actually, that's not really true. I've spoken on this before, but the best
> analogy I have so far is between us to heavy alcohol users. Alcoholics are
> only 10% of the *customers* for alcohol-related companies, but they consume
> 50% of the alcohol created. I'm not claiming that lego addiction is
> comparable to alcohol addiction in he sense that it's bad (1), just that us
> adults can afford to, and *will*, buy more than the children market if we
> are being catered.
>
> The data you have there - are you sure it said 10% of *lego* was *bought* by
> adults? Or was it 10% of customers? Plus, how does TLC know, if adults are
> buying products in stores and such? It's just an estimate. Might be *very*
> wrong. Additionaly, I am willing to argue ferociously that if lego catered
> us, their heavy users, they would be way out of their financial troubles by now.
Keep in mind the Pareto (sp?) Principle. Or the 80/20 rule. 20% of your
clientele purchases 80% of your product. So, does the 10% presented
above equal 50% of the 20% Pareto concept? Or is that 10% of the 20% (in
essence 2% of total purchases)? Some interesting things to ponder as
your mind wanders through the murk.
>
> Does that make sense?
Yes! No? Maybe... Erm, what was the question?
>
> (1) That's a matter of opinion, and I'm not getting into that discussion!
> Shoo, shoo!
This I will not touch with a ten foot pole.
--
Matt Brooks
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
