Comments on: Effect size matters

By: swong

swong — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:33:01 +0000

Ah – I read that as a 5% increase in status spending, not a 5% increase in likelihood of a big purchase. My bad.

By: pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:57:43 +0000

The 5% likelihood is cumulative from the time of the win. If the urge to status consume is greatest when you’re exposed to a competitors status consumption then the biggest this effect can be is 5% (with 0 effect after).

By: swong

swong — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:45:04 +0000

I’m just wildly speculating here: maybe the status value of a luxury item isn’t pegged to its market value, and maybe it drops precipitously with time, varying with the initial value and type of item. It seems plausible that, say, a brand new, impossible-to-get must-have $3000 Carbon Neutral Edition OLED big screen TV has a higher status value (for a little while) than a five year old luxury car worth 20x as much.

By: pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:28:24 +0000

I’m too lazy to go back to the paper, but i think it was several months.

By: swong

swong — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:07:46 +0000

Could a status purchase have a higher value for the first few days? What’s the delay between the gift and the increase in status spending?

“Hey Bob, congrats on the Lexus you won last month, but check out my new big screen TV!”

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:20:50 +0000

Also, blogging tip #1, try to make the title as phun-ier as possible: “Size Matters”. Ta da!

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:17:53 +0000

In a terrible horrible awful world, spending on a $30k car will get you $30k + $1 state consumptions