In direct marketing texts very little is discussed about sample sizes, and even less about Type I and Type II errors. Admittedly, the latter is somewhat complicated, and business statistics books often recommend that readers go over sections covering it carefully and repeatedly.

‘Complicated’ is, unfortunately, not synonymous with ‘of theoretical value only’. In fact, the opposite is true in this case, because the Type II error is of fundamental importance, as becomes apparent if we step back and ask why we bother about test and sample size in the first place.

We do so, basically, for two reasons. First, we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don’t want to take a test result that is somewhat less than our expectation on its face value. We’d rather use the test to __estimate__ the list characteristic leading to the result, and if that turns out to be acceptable, we’d like to scale up. This is why we worry about __a__ (the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis).

At the same time, we don’t want to lose money by scaling up when we shouldn’t have. This means we should worry about the __minimum response__ that would be ok. For this we must worry about __b__ (the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis).

Yet, the commonly used formula for sample size completely ignores beta (not only in direct marketing books and online calculators but also in most of the business statistics texts I’ve come across)!

The formula goes like this:

N = | z |

E |

Where

z is the value used for the specified confidence level

p is the estimated response (population proportion) and

E is the ± sampling error allowed.

Let’s say estimated response is 2%; the allowed error is ±0.25%; and confidence level is 90%.

Putting these into the template yields a sample size of 8,485.

Let’s see what this means in terms of b if the true response (which we’ll get to know only if we scale up to the entire list) is, say, 1.65%. __b turns out to be 23%, that is, 1 in 4!__

Humm, that’s bad. There’s a 1 in 4 chance that while accepting a figure between 1.75% and 2.25% as ‘as good as’ a 2% response rate, we’ll actually accept a list with only 1.65% response.

No wonder one of the well accepted rules of the thumb in direct marketing goes: “As a rule, the response rate from a rollout to the balance of the list after a successful test mailing will usually be lower than the response from the test.”

This may be because of a variety of differences between test and rollout conditions. But one thing needs to be kept in mind: If one ignores Type II errors, __the success of the test can be very suspect indeed__.

A way out could be to use an alternative formula:

N = ( | |z | ) |

p |

Where

p_{0} is the estimated response

p_{1} is the value for which Type II error will be monitored

z_{0 }is z_{a }or z_{a/2 }depending on whether the test is one- or two-tailed and

z1 is z_{b} where b is the limit on type II error probability when p = p_{1}.

Let’s see what happens if estimated response is 2%, the allowed error is ±0.25%, and confidence level is 90% (as before); while p_{1} is 1.65% and b is 10% (i.e., there is only a 1 in 10 chance – not 1 in 4 as earlier – that we’ll accept a list with a real response rate of 1.65% by performing the test).

We get a sample size of 12,643.

Sure, __it’s a 50% increase in sample size. But it may be well worth it if the roll out numbers and costs are far higher than the test’s.__

In any case, won’t decisions be better if they were taken with a clearer idea of the risks?

PS: Please excuse the ungainly appearance of the formula. It's the best I could manage using a Word file. Both formulas can be found in the useful templates at http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070620164/student_view0/excel_templates.html

## 4 comments:

I savor, cause I found just what I was taking a look for.

You've ended my four day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye

Also visit my site::piano lessonsI am really impressed along with your writing talents and also with

the layout in your blog. Is that this a paid subject matter

or did you modify it your self? Anyway keep up the excellent high quality writing, it's uncommon to see a nice weblog like this one nowadays..

My web site::how to make an appHey there I am so glad I found your blog page, I

really found you by mistake, while I was browsing on Digg for something else, Anyhow

I am here now and would just like to say

cheers for a remarkable post and a all round entertaining blog (I also love the theme/design), I don't have time to read through it all at the moment but I have book-marked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the excellent job.

My webpagemake acne disappear overnightGreat post! We are linking to this great article on our website.

Keep up the good writing.

My web page>property in turkeyPost a comment