This is not an approval rating poll. It is a poll asking who will buy the book. Again, assuming that the numbers are anywhere near representative (big assumption), approximately one-third is excellent market penetration. If one in three traders buys his book, Tim is well on his way. If anything, I think the poll numbers are a little high since I don't think that, realistically, one in three traders, or those interested in the markets, will buy his book (or any other book for that matter). However, it can be very successful with a significantly lower ratio than that. Think it through.
in direct marketing--a 1% response is considered average/good. anything over 3% is a huge hit. many multimillionaires have been made with a 1% response. its obvious to any marketing person, the results of the poll--if anywhere near accurate--- are incredibly positive! best wishes, surf
yes, correct. however, 1/3 market penetration puts someone on the level of McDonalds. its beyond excellent, its <B>MONSTER MONSTER MONSTER!!!</b> nice going timmmmay! surf
You don't know what you're talking about the same way you didn't have a fucking clue when you posted a blog post that had nothing to do with Tim's book and then a bunch of quotes that Tim posted to the comments section of the blog. Why don't you apologize to the board for being misleading?! 1% response is great if you have a channel to sell to 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 people and your product is high margin and high cost. Americans barely fucking read and Tim is a piece of shit who has lost a lot of his money and is appealing to a group of people who are out to make a quick buck and would only look at his book for that purpose. Wall St. won't give a fuck about his book and by self-publishing he's going to miss out on a huge audience that a publisher might have been able to get him access to. Are you his publicist/girlfriend? Do you cheer for him when he's on Cavuto not talking about his book like he said he was? He also, I assume as I didn't watch, didn't bring up the fact that he's not making any money did he? Why be deceptive by not telling people that his book is about making a lot of money fast and losing quite a bit of it even faster?
I was basing my thoughts on sucess rate. Sure if you poll 10 million people and 35 % buy it, he is in good shape.
The idea of a poll is to take a small, representative sample of a potential market and to draw conclusions regarding that population with the results of your small representative sample. That is the basis of market research. You cannot query the entire market, because it is cost prohibitive. That's why companies such as Procter & Gamble regularly do market research with carefully selected and relatively small sample sizes drawn from the population of potential customers, along with even much smaller focus groups. If you expect someone to poll 10 million people before bringing a product to market, then you are fairly misguided. As I noted in a previous post, the poll results are likely to be quite overstated because I'm fairly certain that the respondents are not representative of Tim's entire market. The poll results are way too positive to accept them at face. If you think they are not good enough, then I really don't think that you know what you are talking about. I don't mean to be insulting to you or anyone else. I'm just being honest.
I would say that most of the people who excitedly said "Helly Yes" or whatever it is just picked that one to annoy people who might be annoyed by that one. I can't imagine anyone is really excited about hearing how some douche bag made a bunch of money during the tech bubble and has been losing it since. If they are, they clearly need some help.
I suspect that you are right. However, I also suspect that some of the people who responded "Hell no" had a similar motivation in stirring up the hornet's nest. I think that a simple "no" would have been more credible. Are you "not going to buy the book?" Or are you "really, really, really not going to buy the book?" I'm guessing that both extremes, positive and negative, should be adjusted downward to arrive at a more plausible distribution. And that's assuming an otherwise representative sample.