A purchase alone cannot establish preference for that product over alternatives the buyer could not obtain.
Purchases can still provide evidence of choice under specified conditions. Nettleton's allegations about tied houses do not independently establish their prevalence or every customer's motives.
Interpret observed buying alongside availability, price, purpose and the option to buy nothing. A market outcome does not by itself establish comparative sensory preference.
Idea
A purchase alone cannot establish preference for that product over alternatives the buyer could not obtain.
Interpret observed buying alongside availability, price, purpose and the option to buy nothing. A market outcome does not by itself establish comparative sensory preference.
Source and interpretation
Nettleton contests the inference from sales to public preference by alleging that tied-house arrangements restrict what consumers can buy. The transferable insight concerns the alternatives in a choice set. His commercial allegations require separate historical verification. Academy example: choosing the only whiskey on a menu says nothing decisive about whether that customer would prefer a second whiskey absent from the menu.
Limits
Purchases can still provide evidence of choice under specified conditions. Nettleton's allegations about tied houses do not independently establish their prevalence or every customer's motives.
Connections
Whiskey and Philosophy — Authenticity, categories and sensory resemblance
Whole-chapter qualification
Full reading of chapterXIX also finds Nettleton acknowledging a larger market for malt whisky through blending (physical PDF598). That admission should accompany the tied-house argument: restricted choice, commercial expansion and sensory preference are different propositions. His allegations do not establish every buyer's motives.