Do You More Than Run in Your Nike?
Review of “Do you more than run in your Nike?…”
Some studies assert that the various application of a product for purposes other than originally designed ostensibly desensitizes customer interest over time.
However, this conclusion remains unfounded. The studies relied on unrepresentative data about one product, namely, Nike sneakers, to overgeneralize customer preferences almost universally about other unrelated products.
For example, the studies supposedly surveyed a small sample population of Nike sneaker users to infer user interests among other products. Additionally, the survey assessed, “product evaluation, customer satisfaction, and prospective customer recommendations,” to conclude that customer satisfaction “probably” diminishes commensurately with products when used “for different purposes, in different situations,” than originally designed.
But this conjectural conclusion mistakes correlation for causation because subjective opinions extrapolated from one small survey concerning one product reveals no results about public opinion of other products. The putative customer dissatisfaction proportionately with different applications for Nike Sneakers, reveals nothing about consumer behavior toward other products concerning greater product variety use than intended. Therefore, the studies assume without warrant an almost inextricable relationship between customer satisfaction results yielded for one product and products in general.
Furthermore, the characterizations of “lower variety situations”—“walking dog, walking to work, and walking to grocery store”—from “higher variety situations”—“walking the dog, flying on airplanes, and pursuing home improvement projects”—to distinguish categories in a bifurcated experimental study provides no reliable barometer for defining variety. What constitutes a lower variety situation? The article appears to assume that “flying on airplanes” and “pursuing home improvement projects,” varies extensively enough from walking in labeling this category higher variety situations.
Nevertheless, one may contend that walking may constitute a sufficiently significant difference from running or athletics—which seems more consistently aligned with the purpose of Nike sneakers. Hence, the biased labels between lower and higher variety situations without any objective, empirical evidence and/or extrinsic definition of each category fails to accurately measure variety in product uses.
Therefore, the conclusion that “using a product in various circumstances,” perhaps differently than designed “probably” fails to increase customer satisfaction based on studies of just one product—Nike sneakers—lacks merit. Without evidentiary support to substantiate an inference about customer satisfaction for other products, the article mistakes “probable” causation for “possible” correlation. Beyond the mere speculation of assuming no different preferences possibly generated among different population samples concerning different products, this article also fails to reliably differentiate variety uses for products.