I thought maybe the McDonald’s analogy would be good considering...

First 4173 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Rebound985

171 Posts.

38

30/04/21

12:39

Post #: 52844141
Share

Originally posted by SCPS2: ↑

1 you're saying it's more effective to better advertise to a smaller market at one location than it is to advertise to a broader market at multiple locations.
1b I can't think of a logical reason to travel to a McDonalds 3 hours drive from here, when there is one now open just down the road.

2 you're comparing food, something everyone consumes, and do so on a daily basis, to a niche criteria of people diagnosed with breast cancer, who would be willing to voluntarily commit to a clinical trial, something that MAY come with side effects.
2b can't remember being overly fond of the idea of ordering food after getting food poisoning.

3 you're talking about a non-intrusive alternative means to detect ANY cancer from simply consuming food. This study is a test to confirm that in fact the nanoparticles cling to existing cancer cells in diagnosed patients.
3b This is not a burger that simply passes through you that you can get at the drive-thru window.

Expand

I thought maybe the McDonald’s analogy would be good considering some of you seem to be working there.

If you advertise at a single location, you should get at least a single customer just ONE!
If you can’t do that, then what does that tell you?
Maybe I should open up blockbusters around major cities because obviously you just needs to cast wider nets, who needs to communicate their product better?

ONE. I just want ONE participant. But they can’t even produce that.

All I’m saying is that wasting money opening up locations may not be the best idea here.

IBX Price at posting: 9.1¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
1 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply