"Your vacation resort can ill afford not to publicize its offerings on Travelshack.com. Our readership has more than doubled in the past year alone and is dominated by savvy consumers with large disposable incomes. Witness the experience of Snowbert Ski Lodge. Since it began advertising itself on our website a year ago, it has regularly been booked to capacity, and its annual profits have increased more than threefold from the previous year."
Correlation does not equal causation, and this instance is no exception. Travelshack.com's claims assume that because Snowbert Ski Lodge signed with Travelshack.com, its profits have tripled. However, for a discerning customer, more information is needed to make a decision - was Travelshack.com really a keystone in Snowbert's success?
First off, Travelshack.com did not state that it alone signed with Snowbert. Since there are a lot of travel sites out there on the market, for example Airbnb, Snowbert must have signed with more of these sites as part of major expansion plan; all the cumulative exposure would eventually pay off should Snowbert itself be a profitable enterprise. As its profits tripled, it can be safely assumed that Snowbert is indeed profitable.
Secondly, the reader needs to consider Snowbert's financial statements over the past five years. The crucial point is whether or not Snowbert was successful before the deal. If the company showed constant growth on par with the rate reported by Travelshack.com, then the site's contract with Snowbert was merely an unnecessary addition. To go further, one must look at Snowbert's financial records even beyond five years. Recently the Great Recession ended, so there is an increase in the amount of wealth the middle-upper class can spend. Basic economics dictates that when people have money, they are more willing to spend. So the reader must compare Snowbert's financial returns to other similarly performing ski lodges to determine if such rates are similar. If they are, then he/she can assume that Travelshack.com was unnecessary.
Finally, the reader needs to consider the weather, so crucial to the success of a ski lodge. Could it be possible that last year produced little snow compared to this year? In general, customers checking out a ski lodge would also check out the area and the inches of snowfall before making reservations. This year Snowbert was successful, but it may be because of a record snowfall in the area. Besides snowfall, wind sheer, hail, and other ersatz factors can come into play - resorts that rely on the temperamental weather have historically had ups and downs.
When businesses like Travelshack.com make claims correlating a business's success to signing with them, hoping to entice potential customers into signing with them, a discerning customer needs to consider if said business was successful because of the contract. The example used, Snowbert, needs further information to make an educated choice, namely, whether Travelshack.com was the sole contractor, financial trends, and the weather.
Correlation does not equal causation, and this instance is no exception. Travelshack.com's claims assume that because Snowbert Ski Lodge signed with Travelshack.com, its profits have tripled. However, for a discerning customer, more information is needed to make a decision - was Travelshack.com really a keystone in Snowbert's success?
First off, Travelshack.com did not state that it alone signed with Snowbert. Since there are a lot of travel sites out there on the market, for example Airbnb, Snowbert must have signed with more of these sites as part of major expansion plan; all the cumulative exposure would eventually pay off should Snowbert itself be a profitable enterprise. As its profits tripled, it can be safely assumed that Snowbert is indeed profitable.
Secondly, the reader needs to consider Snowbert's financial statements over the past five years. The crucial point is whether or not Snowbert was successful before the deal. If the company showed constant growth on par with the rate reported by Travelshack.com, then the site's contract with Snowbert was merely an unnecessary addition. To go further, one must look at Snowbert's financial records even beyond five years. Recently the Great Recession ended, so there is an increase in the amount of wealth the middle-upper class can spend. Basic economics dictates that when people have money, they are more willing to spend. So the reader must compare Snowbert's financial returns to other similarly performing ski lodges to determine if such rates are similar. If they are, then he/she can assume that Travelshack.com was unnecessary.
Finally, the reader needs to consider the weather, so crucial to the success of a ski lodge. Could it be possible that last year produced little snow compared to this year? In general, customers checking out a ski lodge would also check out the area and the inches of snowfall before making reservations. This year Snowbert was successful, but it may be because of a record snowfall in the area. Besides snowfall, wind sheer, hail, and other ersatz factors can come into play - resorts that rely on the temperamental weather have historically had ups and downs.
When businesses like Travelshack.com make claims correlating a business's success to signing with them, hoping to entice potential customers into signing with them, a discerning customer needs to consider if said business was successful because of the contract. The example used, Snowbert, needs further information to make an educated choice, namely, whether Travelshack.com was the sole contractor, financial trends, and the weather.
