Skip to main content

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day - the problem with comparison reviews

I'm a sucker for consumer programmes, especially those that give us an expert opinion on everyday products, such as Channel 4's Tried and Tasted. It's cheap and cheerful stuff - but there's something highly entertaining about a panel including Michel Roux Jr and Jay Rayner blind tasting meat pies and ice cream (not simultaneously). However, this show presents us with an extreme example of the problem facing most comparative reviews - how do you choose the products to be in your sample?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the journalists who suffer their way through a comparative test. I once tested getting on for 70 laptops (over a year, not all at once) for a magazine, and it's an arduous job. But the fact remains that unless you try absolutely everything you can get your hands on, as I did with those laptops, there is a hidden selection process going on, which can strongly skew the results.

To take a recent example, I saw in a newspaper a comparison of supermarket croissants. Winner was the expensive Waitrose 1 Normandy butter croissants, while, for example, Asda's version which were long life and individually wrapped (and, frankly, not very nice) received a good dressing down as not coming close to anything that could really be said to resemble a croissant. But the thing is, both Asda and Waitrose sell more than one type of croissant. Asda also has a Normandy butter croissant in its 'Extra Special' range which is pretty much the real thing - certainly far better than its long life, straight and squidgy version. So how do they decide which croissants we see and which we don't?

This pre-selection is taken to the extreme on Tried and Tasted, where only four products are compared. I can see that a small sample is necessary for TV, and they try to mix it up by having, say, two supermarket products, one branded and one artisan - but it's still a very restricted set. So while we can enjoy the fact that M and S makes the best steak and ale pie from the four selected, or that Asda and Tesco's hummus offerings were rated far better than the much more expensive branded and artisan versions, it would be easy enough to produce a totally different ranking using the same divisions of supermarket/branded/artisan but with different choices.

The most important thing - which should, surely be obvious - is to compare like with like. If you're going to look at premium croissants, only look at premium croissants. No one would seriously consider a comparative car review putting a Vauxhall Corsa, and Aston Martin DB10 and a stretched limo against each other. Unless you divide your products into sensible categories, you will always have the danger of a very mixed and misleading comparison.

Comments

  1. The purpose of the show is to entertain, not to find the best croissant or whatever-it-is they are tasting. The fun lies in seeing the presumed expert taster preferring the market-leading Gordon's Gin to the much more expensive Bombay Sapphire. And in seeing how they disagree with each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m sure you’re right, Sally - and that’s why I enjoy it, I suspect. But I was just using it as a hook to talk about comparative reviews in general.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...