Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
I was quite intrigued by the BrandSpark Canadian Trust Study. Their methodology in their press release states: "The BrandSpark Most Trusted Awards are based on the 2025 BrandSpark Canadian Trust Study, in which BrandSpark surveyed a nationally representative sample of 35,200 Canadian shoppers to determine the most trusted brands in Canada. Their top-of-mind unaided responses for categories they actively shop and services they use formed the basis for ranking, with ties declared if the margin of victory was within 3%. To be declared a winner or within the top 3 most trusted brands, a brand had to achieve a minimum 10% trustshare in its category."
Ultimately, it's just a popularity contest, rather than being based directly on anything respectable and objective. Nevertheless, it provides a view into the subjectivity of the Canadian people, who essentially voted independently on their favourite brands across a range of household products and common services. Of relevance to this forum, of course, is the vacuum cleaner category. I was shocked to learn that for the last TWELVE years, one company has been utterly dominant at the top of the rankings. The company in question wasn't shocking for anyone who follows technological developments in a learned and unbiased way—although I'm too frightened to speak the company's name freely for fear of more forum abuse. But what was genuinely shocking was how a fact of this magnitude has gone unmentioned on a forum of such scale for over a decade. That's a striking observation with some rather negative implications.
This is even more strongly reinforced by looking at the statistical significance of this observation. For those educated in basic statistics, for a sample size of 35,200 out of a population size of about 41.29 million, the margin of error is about 1.04%, meaning this is very precise for most practical applications like surveys or market research. That the same result has been achieved 12 times in a row is astonishing. Statistically, suppose the probability of getting your result due to random chance is p = 0.05 (standard α level). The chance of seeing the same significant result 12 times in a row purely by chance is: 𝑃(12 in a row) = 0.05^12 ≈ 2.4 × 10^−16. That’s essentially zero — so the subjective opinions of the Canadian people from this survey is almost certainly real.
That one brand is so trusted says something about the technology and product quality. This contrasts terribly with conflicting sentiments and rampant extrapolations from very limited data that lack anything approaching the same statistical confidence level. Identifying contrasts of such shocking magnitude is precisely how you determine and define propaganda. You can draw some very profound conclusions about those that promulgate the propaganda from striking data like this.
Ultimately, it's just a popularity contest, rather than being based directly on anything respectable and objective. Nevertheless, it provides a view into the subjectivity of the Canadian people, who essentially voted independently on their favourite brands across a range of household products and common services. Of relevance to this forum, of course, is the vacuum cleaner category. I was shocked to learn that for the last TWELVE years, one company has been utterly dominant at the top of the rankings. The company in question wasn't shocking for anyone who follows technological developments in a learned and unbiased way—although I'm too frightened to speak the company's name freely for fear of more forum abuse. But what was genuinely shocking was how a fact of this magnitude has gone unmentioned on a forum of such scale for over a decade. That's a striking observation with some rather negative implications.
This is even more strongly reinforced by looking at the statistical significance of this observation. For those educated in basic statistics, for a sample size of 35,200 out of a population size of about 41.29 million, the margin of error is about 1.04%, meaning this is very precise for most practical applications like surveys or market research. That the same result has been achieved 12 times in a row is astonishing. Statistically, suppose the probability of getting your result due to random chance is p = 0.05 (standard α level). The chance of seeing the same significant result 12 times in a row purely by chance is: 𝑃(12 in a row) = 0.05^12 ≈ 2.4 × 10^−16. That’s essentially zero — so the subjective opinions of the Canadian people from this survey is almost certainly real.
That one brand is so trusted says something about the technology and product quality. This contrasts terribly with conflicting sentiments and rampant extrapolations from very limited data that lack anything approaching the same statistical confidence level. Identifying contrasts of such shocking magnitude is precisely how you determine and define propaganda. You can draw some very profound conclusions about those that promulgate the propaganda from striking data like this.
Last edited:
