Art Dudley's is a big disappointment to me. He constructs a straw man model of blind testing and flails away. I simply do not get his analogy about art forgery. Is there anyone out there saying you should examine visual art blindfolded? Plus he ignores the fact that peer reviewed scientific (non-subjectivist) testing is used in forgery investigation. Dudley's straw man model is limited to rapid switching and he is correct in how such quick switching or short samples can be misleading, but he refuses to explore blind testing with long-term sampling. Extended sample time blind testing probably is a very effective methodology for judging the quality of audio equipment.
The New Coke switch is probably the most studied business case ever. Pepsi knew what the outcome of their challenge would be. Coke knew it too. A sweeter drink is equivalent to an audio test where one sample is consistently louder than the other. The real question has always been why Coke reformulated? The answer to that question is still being debated, but what is undeniable is that Coke got more press attention and marketing buzz with the intro of New Coke and the reversion to Classic Coke then any consumer products company has ever received. The popular notion is that New Coke was a fiasco, but it actually revitalized Coke.
The New Coke switch is probably the most studied business case ever. Pepsi knew what the outcome of their challenge would be. Coke knew it too. A sweeter drink is equivalent to an audio test where one sample is consistently louder than the other. The real question has always been why Coke reformulated? The answer to that question is still being debated, but what is undeniable is that Coke got more press attention and marketing buzz with the intro of New Coke and the reversion to Classic Coke then any consumer products company has ever received. The popular notion is that New Coke was a fiasco, but it actually revitalized Coke.

