4 ms·

The article has a different understanding of the new coke situation. The article is also well thought out, thoroughly researched and cites the opinions of mark

The article has a different understanding of the new coke situation. The article is also well thought out, thoroughly researched and cites the opinions of marketers at the time. I urge you to read it before overriding it with your one paragraph "understanding" of it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mixmastamyk 5y ago
Don't take "my understanding" as "I have no idea what I'm talking about." I lived thru this era, and was always a fan of Coke's harsher bite in preference to Pepsi's "sugar water" flavor, until I gave them up in preference for diet and later water. Marketing had little influence on me (in that area) then and now, I tried them all including RC and Shasta with an open mind. Was a kid so wasn't obsessed with "the old days" either. Ok, just read it, and it didn't contradict my assertion. But it did make me realize MS made the same mistake CC did. They forced their change down everyone's throat. Instead of bringing up Coke II alongside and letting folks try it at their leisure they only shipped one at a time. Perhaps for shelf space reasons, ironic considering in ten years they'd have many, many flavors competing. I think I've read it before as this was my point above: "Marketing professionals also noted that New Coke’s success in taste tests may have been due to the small servings offered to tasters. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell points out that such “sip tests” could produce a systemic bias towards sweeter drinks, since small samples would prevent the drinker from reaching the sickly-sweet threshold."
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  >Ok, just read it, and it didn't contradict my assertion Next time read it first before replying. It's not mandatory to read everything here on an HN thread but it's common courtesy that you read it all before you reply. Otherwise you'd be wasting my (and your own) time. >Don't take "my understanding" as "I have no idea what I'm talking about." No I didn't. I took it as you didn't read the article. Which I'm right. >I think I've read it before as this was my point above: Agreed. And this point is valid. It supports your assertion. However this does not mean you can dismiss all other assertions, especially the main assertion of the article. Sensation transference. The article brings both points up to be fair and balanced. The possibility of sensation transference remains open just as the "sickly-sweet threshold." We would need a systematic test to prove it either way. Until then sensation transference remains an open possibility for affecting the opinions of people judging both Windows and New Coke. I think it would be wise to be aware that none of us our purely rational creatures, and that things that we're sure about should be judged with a healthy amount of skepticism as that judgement is heavily influenced by unknown biases.
  - CRConrad 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mixmastamyk 5y ago

Don't take "my understanding" as "I have no idea what I'm talking about." I lived thru this era, and was always a fan of Coke's harsher bite in preference to Pepsi's "sugar water" flavor, until I gave them up in preference for diet and later water. Marketing had little influence on me (in that area) then and now, I tried them all including RC and Shasta with an open mind. Was a kid so wasn't obsessed with "the old days" either. Ok, just read it, and it didn't contradict my assertion. But it did make me realize MS made the same mistake CC did. They forced their change down everyone's throat. Instead of bringing up Coke II alongside and letting folks try it at their leisure they only shipped one at a time. Perhaps for shelf space reasons, ironic considering in ten years they'd have many, many flavors competing. I think I've read it before as this was my point above: "Marketing professionals also noted that New Coke’s success in taste tests may have been due to the small servings offered to tasters. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell points out that such “sip tests” could produce a systemic bias towards sweeter drinks, since small samples would prevent the drinker from reaching the sickly-sweet threshold."

deltaonefour 5y ago
>Ok, just read it, and it didn't contradict my assertion Next time read it first before replying. It's not mandatory to read everything here on an HN thread but it's common courtesy that you read it all before you reply. Otherwise you'd be wasting my (and your own) time. >Don't take "my understanding" as "I have no idea what I'm talking about." No I didn't. I took it as you didn't read the article. Which I'm right. >I think I've read it before as this was my point above: Agreed. And this point is valid. It supports your assertion. However this does not mean you can dismiss all other assertions, especially the main assertion of the article. Sensation transference. The article brings both points up to be fair and balanced. The possibility of sensation transference remains open just as the "sickly-sweet threshold." We would need a systematic test to prove it either way. Until then sensation transference remains an open possibility for affecting the opinions of people judging both Windows and New Coke. I think it would be wise to be aware that none of us our purely rational creatures, and that things that we're sure about should be judged with a healthy amount of skepticism as that judgement is heavily influenced by unknown biases.
- CRConrad 5y ago