Therefore, rightly or wrongly, I take exception to the suggestion (even if you say you aren't) that our figures are incorrect or in some way fudged/massaged or that UK florists don't know what they are talking about. That is a generalisation that is insulting and - given your many intelligent comments - beneath you.
It has nothing to do with your ethics, which I don't doubt. It has a lot to do with how the survey was conducted. You can be as ethical as you are, but still can be erroneous.
If the ethics was the standard for the accuracy of survey, then all the pollsters' data should never be questioned. It would be "insulting" (your words) to do so, and anyone who questions its accuracy would have to be labeled "beneath you" (your words too).
Please...
Accuracy can be questioned, irrespective of the intent of the publisher. I'm sure you understand this now. I understand it's upsetting to see someone questioning the accuracy of your publication, but what can I do? Should just keep quiet?
Yes I read your article entirely. And it doesn't make sense. I belive your survey is flawed, as many of these surveys are. They make interesting reading, but have no scientific basis, IMO.
There are at least two flaws as far as I can see.
First according to your article, only 14.2% of respondents answered to your survey. This is a red flag here. 85.8% of those whom you contacted didn't respond.
Accuracy of a survey critically depends on 'randomness' of sampling. A very low response rate breaks this rule.
When the response is low, there is a real danger that the sampling is no longer random. That's because your data is based on the responses from only those who wanted to respond.
Then the question becomes this.
Is it possible that those who had a good number was more willing to respond, compared to those who had terrible numbers?
I would say it's quite possible, even plausible. If you have no data showing otherwise, at least you might want to call your readers' attention to the fact that your data might be
very selective.
Secondly, the numbers themselves do not add up. Here's why.
I quote:
Of the 293 florists who belonged to a relay company, a massive 49% of you reported a drop in your incoming orders with only 10% reporting uplift. Conversely 33% of you reported an increase in your local order, 23% said they were down and 44% said local orders were about the same.
First I object to the use of word like "massive" to emphasize the drop of incoming orders. In fact, similar 44%, according to this data, didn't see any increase of local orders. You didn't call it "massive." This is a selective use of word to emphasize only a certain aspect of the data, not not the other.
I don't know what exactly your questions were in the poll. However, in the article, you refer to only three categories: "about the same" "increase" "drop".
"About the same" is a tricky one, unless your survey qualifies it. Some people think that, considering the bad economy, 7% decline can be seen as "about the same."
So in this 44% of respondents who said "about the same", I don't know how many were actually seeing decline or increase and by what degree. It's all lumped together.
But let's say half of them saw increase and half saw decrease. Then, what your survey actually saw is 45% - down (22% + 23%) and 55% (22% + 33%) up. Within a margin of error, it's basically saying half was up and half was down. A far less impressive than your original claim that >75% said same or up.
Even this picture (half down, half up) would not be consistent with the other poll saying they saw 50% drop in sales in incoming orders.
You could reconcile these two conflicting data by assuming the two markets, relay orders and local orders, are independent of each other. I concede that this is possible. How do I know about UK market. At least here, however, I know that local markets and incoming orders move in the same direction, although the actual degree of shift can be different. They rarely move to the opposite directions, which is your main claim.
So, that's what I think.
Finally, it's unfortunate that you took my critique personally. It never was intended to be an insult. That's all I can say.
