Response to comments on 'When "significant" is not significant'

This article provides a response to the comments and questions raised in 'Can MAD replace significance tests? Comments on 'When "significant" is not significant', published in this issue of IJMR.

Response to comments on 'When "significant" is not significant'

Rachel Kennedy, John Scriven and Magda Nenycz-Thiel

Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia

We thank Chuck for taking the time to write a response. In hindsight there are a few points that we could have perhaps made clearer, so this feedback is important. As Ehrenbergians we are used to being challenged and always interested in being evidenced based and advancing tools to help marketers make the right decisions.

The main point Chuck is trying to make we agree is valid, that...

Not a subscriber?

Schedule your live demo with our team today

WARC helps you to plan, create and deliver more effective marketing

  • Prove your case and back-up your idea

  • Get expert guidance on strategic challenges

  • Tackle current and emerging marketing themes

We’re long-term subscribers to WARC and it’s a tool we use extensively. We use it to source case studies and best practice for the purposes of internal training, as well as for putting persuasive cases to clients. In compiling a recent case for long-term, sustained investment in brand, we were able to support key marketing principles with numerous case studies sourced from WARC. It helped bring what could have been a relatively dry deck to life with recognisable brand successes from across a broad number of categories. It’s incredibly efficient to have such a wealth of insight in one place.

Insights Team
Bray Leino

You’re in good company

We work with 80% of Forbes' most valuable brands* and 80% of the world's top top-of-the-class agencies.

* Top 10 brands