Big Data | Faffery

Quick guys, we need to know ASAP how this target market behaves. We need to track eye movements and mouse hovering and other arbitrary wank to really know our customers. We need to know our customers so we can push this brand vision and do some real and proper engagement.

You know what we need? We need some data. And I mean, data. Big fucking fuckloads of data. What do you mean, “how do we get it”? It’s only data, numbers and shit, yeah? Here, just take these surveys and throw them at people.

Christ, why.

When did ethical research methods become optional when collecting data? It seems that the trend is shifting toward getting as much data as possible, about as many behaviours as possible, without even considering the manner in which such data is collected.

Market research firms push qualitative methodologies like surveys and focus groups and “in-depth interviews” without so much as acknowledging the dissonance, experimenter effects and reasoning biases that are inherent in every single one of us, and skew such data for the worst.

And that isn’t even mentioning the absolute hatchet job that is converting user responses into measurable, testable data.

Not only are subjective responses non-indicative of behavioural intentions, they often have no relation at all to evaluations of effectiveness. And the small sample size of focus groups and interviews can polarise data to the point where it does not reflect the population in any way.

Focus groups are usually the easiest way out but they don’t provide data, just opinions. The only thing they should be used for is to inspire creative ideas or kick-start further research into commonly mentioned themes.

If quantitative data is the goal, measure quantitative responses. Don’t try and convert qual responses into quant data, because even the most experienced scientific researchers screw that process up.

However, in ad land, there are two kinds of research agencies. The first is the aforementioned, relying on qual responses in the form of opinions. The second is sometimes the bigger offender: the big data miner.

The big data miner can become over reliant on quant data to the point that what he collects has no relation to buying behaviour in any form.

Tracking the consumer journey? Using neuro-linguistic programming to predict purchases? Fucking mouse hovering? Really?? This is not science. This is taking one scientific concept and connecting it to another through bullshit and wishful thinking.

It’s exactly the line of thinking that spurs brand faffery like ‘vision’ and ‘personality’ and ‘values’ and expects the consumer to give enough of a shit to bother differentiating between them.

Data is great. It can tell us many things. But in order to be relevant and relatable to buyer behaviour, it must be the right type of data, and must be collected using proper scientific methodology.

No shortcuts.

a.ce