Seduction of data. The false sense of empowerment that exists because we think we know – or can know – everything about everyone.
Think about it. How many articles have you read, presentations have you seen, or speeches have you heard, that purport to be the ultimate source/analytical answer/magic black box that will capture, understand, predict, motivate, push, sell, capture…the consumer/buyer…you get the circle… In fact, the discussion has gone so far as to return to a technique touted years ago in the traditional ad industry that tracked your eyeballs – not as in Internet eyeballs – your real honest-to-God eyeballs — and based on where you looked the editors would edit and place the supers and texts and such.
Now think on this: if that technique had worked all those years ago – then TV spots would have all been wickedly successful and content would have been seconded to technique and technology.
And if that technology – today measuring down to the pixel – was really the answer than again – what chance would a mere consumer have?
Yet, sadly or not I guess, commerce remains commerce. Take up rates and buying percentages remain what they were. Unless I’m missing something there has been no exponential gain in retail or other purchasing. We are still locked into the discussion of how much business is migrating from one channel to another.
So where does that leave us? And what is the challenge?
Seems to me the question is what do we really know about people? What do we need to know? And what do we do with the information we have?
All of which leads me to a great article I read called “Lies, Damned Lies and….”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145865
The article focuses on genome research but is applicable on a universal basis. One of the key findings is the overestimation of DNA analysis vs. lifestyle in predicting disease risk and the huge problems that has caused in medicine.
And there you have it…
If I’m watching the pixels that register your behavior and making key decisions based on that, how do I know you are just not bored and moving the mouse in circles? Or that your baby grandson isn’t sitting on your lap playing while you try to work or that the battery is dying in your wireless mouse causing erratic movement? [My morning by the way!]
This leads me to the quote that inspired the article:
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli
Our job, as I see it, is to as Sharon Begley so succinctly ends her column, “amend his line to “lies, damned lies, revealed by statistics.”
Here is to revelation!
What’s your thought?
That quote is from a politician – people often accused of being economical with the truth. So I think the statement is often taken out of context – really, it is an inditement of the use of statistics by politicians in a time (19th Century England) long before research codes, bodies and standard methodologies.
Sure, interrogate and understand the research methodology before you trust any statistics, and take them in the context of personal experience too. But if you don’t try to put rigorous data insight a the core of your decision making process you’ll get beaten by your competitor who does. 99% of the time anyway
A message I like to use with my clients about simulators and modelling: Think of the computer (or simulator, or OLAP tables and dashboards) as another voice in the room. It can answer questions that may be hard to answer in any other way. But as a voice in the room, you have to decide whether you want to believe it. There might be something else going on…
Also, statistics can come out wrong if they are abused, or wrong because they are analyses of the past (where data comes from), while consumer behaviour is in the future. Good experimental design lets you reach into the future (but not very far).
Also, statistics and modelling often are right, and their impact has been in lower costs, more effective reach, channel innovation, etc. Why isn’t data-driven commerce perfect then? Partly because everyone is using it (to some extent) and competing with each other (raising the bar), and partly because the future isn’t the past.
Tom.
PS: I’ve seen eyeball tracker studies. They cost heaps, and pity the poor guy with wandering eyes.
I forgot about the wandering eyes…….
I think Clarke pulls out a good point. Any one with .5 of a brain can use the same statistics to point to differing conclusions – BUT bringing your own personal experience to the issue can be invaluable – gut feel, intuitive thinking,instinct, whatever you want to call it – we spend every second of our waking lives taking in information. We should make the most of what we’ve personally experienced.
Sometimes it’s better to take a step back and say “hey that just doesn’t seem right based on my experience, I would expect….”
But always keep those stats in the back pocket armoury.
Blink moments….http://www.gladwell.com/blink/
If I’m watching the pixels that register your behavior and making key decisions based on that, how do I know you are just not bored and moving the mouse in circles?
I assume that’s why companies like Nuconomy are measuring “engagement” instead of “attention”.
In Blink, Gladwell makes an important point. It’s not the volume or range of data that helps you make the right decision, it’s selecting the right data to look at in the first place.
AND looking at the data in the right way.
And that’s probably the most difficult part to do.
and what’s the right way? Therin lies the rub…