{"id":12889,"date":"2019-07-15T16:02:48","date_gmt":"2019-07-15T20:02:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mhgoldberg.com\/blog\/?p=12889"},"modified":"2019-10-26T06:22:49","modified_gmt":"2019-10-26T10:22:49","slug":"retooling-rewheels-reports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mhgoldberg.com\/blog\/?p=12889","title":{"rendered":"Retooling Rewheel’s reports"},"content":{"rendered":"

A report<\/a> by a Managing Director at NERA Economic Consulting<\/a> says policy makers and regulators should ignore the Digital Fuel Monitor, an international mobile pricing study regularly published by Finland’s Rewheel Research<\/a>. According to the new report<\/a>, there is no “simple fix” for the Digital Fuel Monitor; it needs “a complete redesign of the study\u2019s methodology.” <\/p>\n

The Digital Fuel Monitor, published regularly for the past 5 years, is somewhat simplistic (eg. “how many 4G gigabytes will \u20ac30 buy”) and many industry observers rely on the abbreviated ‘public’ version of the study. Most have likely never examined the complete report in detail.<\/p>\n

Each time Rewheel releases its studies, I have found them to be problematic, especially with some of the conclusions that don’t seem to follow from the methodology of the study. Among other problems, Rewheel’s studies are premised on the overly simplistic belief that low prices are the sole indicator of competitiveness of mobile markets as stated succinctly in a 2017 tweet:<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Yes I am afraid I read it. In our side of the Atlantic we measure height in cm, weight in kg & competitiveness in high\/low prices. In yours?<\/p>\n

— Rewheel\/research (@RewheelResearch) May 17, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n