

"Arrington Has a Point" says offer provider - 10% satisfaction with mobile - jim-greer
http://peanutlabs.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/survey-finds-arrington-has-a-point-given-choice-users-overwhelmingly-prefer-direct-payments-and-research-surveys-to-cpa-offers/

======
smeatish
_We conducted a research survey of 11,678 users over the weekend across our
publisher network (~500+ applications) with sample representative of the US
online population._

This is blatant selection bias - asking people who opt to take a survey rather
than sign up for some offer whether they prefer surveys. I don't think this
survey adds anything reliable to the social gaming discussion.

~~~
avdempsey
The article's second claim is incorrectly stated initially, but corrected
further down the page.

"After conducting the survey, we looked at our respondent data on both offers
and surveys completed within Peanut Labs. Interestingly, we found that all the
users we surveyed complete at least twice as many market research surveys as
offers. Users between 20 and 29 complete nearly 4.5 times as many research
surveys as offers while users between 40 and 49 of both sexes complete over 7
times as many market research surveys as offers. The specific numbers on that
are below."

Yes, these are people that took a research survey, but I think the numbers are
striking.

------
jimboyoungblood
This witch hunt is getting ridiculous.

First of all, your headline is misleading. The article says: "Nearly 90% of
users we surveyed were either unhappy _or neutral_ when it came to mobile
advertising offers." Last I checked, neutral != dissatisfied. (Granted, the
actual number if you look at the bar chart is still a whopping 70%)

But if you look at the other charts, it shows that users were somewhat more
satisfied with the other, non-mobile based offers. If the entire industry was
based on scamming people, customers would report 100% dissatisfaction across
the board.

Plus, you can avoid offers entirely and just opt to pay for the virtual
currency directly. Perhaps you think such users are foolish, but they're
certainly not getting scammed.

None of this adds up to "The entire social gaming business is unethical and
evil", as the TechCrunch article would have you believe.

~~~
fnid
_entire industry was based on scamming people, customers would report 100%
dissatisfaction across the board_

Quite wrong. Scammed individuals are notoriously bad about reporting the scam,
because it makes _them_ look bad for being scammed.

~~~
vaksel
the problem is that you can't complain. Who do you talk to? Call the cops for
getting scammed out of $10? Call the company? Which one? The game company? The
phone company? The ad network?

~~~
ksvs
This is where class action suits come in handy.

