3 ms·

> In other words: they ran a trial, and it finished. That itself isn't evidence for either success or failure, any more than taking a scheduled blood test is/is

> In other words: they ran a trial, and it finished. That itself isn't evidence for either success or failure, any more than taking a scheduled blood test is/isn't evidence for a blood disease. There might be some ambiguity, but the evidence needle is definitely more on the "failure" side. This isn't like a routine blood test. They were test marketing a product. If the test succeeded, it would be foolish of them to not roll it out widely and make more money off of its now-measured success. It's very likely the product didn't meet their expectations, but it's hard to say by how much.

woodruffw 4y ago
> If the test succeeded, it would be foolish of them to not roll it out widely and make more money off of its now-measured success. It's very likely the product didn't meet their expectations, but it's hard to say by how much. I don't think you can safely assume that. There are lots of reasons to not immediately turn a trial into a full run: logistical and supply chain considerations, contract negotiations for the ingredients, running surveys and tweaking the items based on customer feedback, &c. This is true in almost every industry except software: you put space between the trial and full deployment because there are physical and logistical considerations that cost time and money.