livingbrands

The data logic trap

As my attempt to catch up on TED talks continues, this one appealed to my geeky statistical background (even if much of it is now forgotten). Oxford math prof Peter Donnelly explains why seemingly logical conclusions, especially those made by supposed 'experts', can be completely wrong...as anyone who's ever been at the wrong end of quant pre-testing will tell you (ah, the joys of cheap jibes!).

(Note: there seems to be some probs with TED's embedded videos, so you might want to jump over to their site if it doesn't load properly)

I found one example of reading data wrongly that Peter used particularly intriguing, and worthy of repeating (albeit with a different context that better fits what we all get up to).

So (if you're ready for some number action) picture the scene...

• You are testing a new product which (for sake of argument) needs 20% penetration to be viable.
• To simplify things, we are going to say that claimed liking in testing is a good predictor of penetration (whether it is or not is irrelevant to the statistical point) - i.e. you need a liking score of 20% to guarantee success.
• And to simplify things further still, assume a polarising product - you either like it or you don't.
• 1 million people will be interviewed (could be more if you like - expense is no issue as we have a bottomless research budget), to minimise sampling error.
• And the test you will be using is known to be 90% accurate.

When the results come back, you find 204,000 people said they liked the product (or 20.4%…exactly what you need). Remembering the 90% accuracy of the test (which is pretty high), should you go ahead?

Now obviously this is a trick question, and you know the answer is no.

But what is interesting (and central to the data logic trap) is the fact that, if you had gone ahead, it wouldn't have a just been a minor problem, but a disaster - you wouldn't have missed your penetration target by just a little, you would have missed it by over a third.

The reason? Because the test (despite being 90% accurate overall) was actually less than 60% accurate at predicting liking scores.

And here's why...

In reality, only 130,000 people liked the product (or 13% penetration). Based on 90% test accuracy, 117,000 of these would have rated correctly, with 13,000 giving a false negative. Conversely, some 870,000 disliked the product. Again, applying 90% accuracy, 783,000 rated correctly...but 87,000 (or 43% of 'positive' responders) actually gave a false positive.

Hence the fact that the test, though 90% accurate, can also be only 60% correct at predicting the measure that really matters (it is, coincidently, 98% accurate at predicting dislike). And why it can be dangerous to take seemingly logical and objective data-driven conclusions at face value.

Nerdy but worrying!

10 things we didn't know before the 11th week of 2008

1. The Duchess of Cornwall once watched Bob Marley in concert.
2. Archimedes was murdered over pi.
3. Forty years after colour TV was introduced to the UK there are still 34,700 people with black and white television licences.
4. Late running trains cost the country 14 million minutes last year.
5. A 4cm hole in the heart is not necessarily fatal.
6. Short men are more likely to be jealous.
7. Toasters are banned in Cuba.
8. Yasmin Le Bon is an anti-counterfeit campaigner.
9. Dolphins can communicate with whales.
10. The difference between vines within France's Champagne region and those just outside is 995,000 euros.

(Source: BBC)

Does God love your brand?

Apologies for the second vaguely religious post of the week, but this really did make me laugh (though it's possibly more funny if you're on the inside of both marketing and the church)

Obviously a gag, but worryingly close to what you get from (shall we say) the more 'eccentric' wing of Christianity (which is, I guess, what makes it such a spot on pastiche).

Although one serious point: how much of what we do with our brands is little more than just hoping for the best in this way?

Thanks to Gavin for the spot.

FutureScoping 74

Just to let you know, the latest edition of my trends newsletter is now out: "emerging trends, new ideas and general thought stimulation"...or so it says on the cover.

What men really want

Take a 'classic' British brand with rather bloke-ish appeal, a tasty product a little out of step with what the Food Police say we should be eating nowadays, nicely retro, almost kitsch packaging, an eyebrow raising name, and high levels of zinc (which, according to Men's Heath magazine, means Mr B's Faggots are good for the libido).

Now mix all these ingredients together to come up with new advertising designed to get the brand noticed, and in the shopping basket of a new generation of (female) shoppers who've probably never thought about it before.

As one review put it: "a playful campaign that answers an age old question" (or, elsewhere, maybe "bravely wading into dangerous territory" - thanks Brand Republic!!).

Hopefully taken in the tongue in cheek way it's intended by those for whom conventional relationship roles aren't as rigorously (or as seriously) enforced, with it's nod to Carry On, cheeky seaside postcards, and 1950's models, it was also written by 2 lovely ladies (read into that what you will).

More executions and radio to follow on.

Cats are ace

Because they let you make great films like these...

Definitely been there in our house!

Modernising sin

Can you name the Seven Deadly Sins (tm)? You'll probably struggle over some (unless you're an avid viewer of Se7en), but the answers are hidden below...

• Pride
• Envy
• Gluttony
• Lust
• Anger
• Greed
• Sloth

Well, to overcome this lack of awareness, and greater lack of relevance (for most people a sloth is probably one of those strange upside-down hanging South American creatures), sin is going the way of most things nowadays and being modernised.

Don't know if this means that the old list no longer applies but, as far as the Pope is concerned, the new Big Ones to be avoided at all costs are as follows...

• Environmental pollution
• Genetic manipulation
• Accumulating excessive wealth
• Inflicting poverty
• Drug trafficking and consumption
• Morally debatable experiments
• Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

With their suitably 'green' and anti-globalisation stance, I'm guessing more of us will agree with most of these.

But as with most acts of modernisation, the new version does lack some of the punchy almost poetic simplicity of the original...and probably their memorably as a consequence. Because for all the relevance issues, you can guarantee that, in a year, the old school version will still trip more easily off the tongue.

Lessons for everyone in the modernisation game there I would suggested. Which gets us right back to those strap line debates.

Planners: too clever by half?

Over at Brand Republic, Tod Norman of Watson Phillips Norman argues that planners are often way too clever for their own good (and the good of creatives they work with and their clients), favouring the (theoretical) cleverness of workings out over useful and practical solutions...an approach that can leave people wondering "yes, but what's the point". Maybe a bit of an over exaggeration/generalising. But it contains a grain of truth. And the point is well made that good planners don't fall into this trap.

He also gives a rationale for this tendency to pontificate: the fact that the (self) worth of planners is found in their 'thinking'. And that, as this is (usually) intangible and subjective, planners can end up defending their ideas way too strongly, taking it as a personal slight or indication of failure if a strategy isn't bought, a brief not signed off or creative solution recommended which is off brief.

This is compared with creatives, who spend pretty much their whole career having work rejected in some way, shape or form. But, for them, this is a recognised part of the process, and they are continually encouraged not to base their value on the ideas they produce which are passed over.

Obviously, despite this too-ing and fro-ing, creatives do end up with a physical product which is 'theirs' (well, it's everyone's - but convention still roots ownership with the creative department, despite the collective effort). But maybe us planners have something to learn from this - we should hold our thinking more lightly…whether in terms of (co)ownership or in letting go and moving on when it is isn't 'right'.

Because there is never just one right answer, there are many. And the trick is finding what best captures everyone's imagination, so they are galvanised to action. So see your 'failures' positively, as part of a learning process. Because even great but 'off-brief' work was still inspired by you in the first place.

Not sure about Tod's point that planners should be 'uncreative' about creative work though.

10 things we didn't know before the 10th week of 2008

Been a busy week, most of it spent overseas on business. So blogging hasn't been on top of the agenda. Which, though it smacks of laziness, means it's back-to-back '10 things we didn't know last week'...

1. Princess Eugenie's first name is pronounced YOO-jenny rather than yoo-JAY-nee.
2. British intelligence chiefs tried to guess Hitler's plans by studying his horoscope.
3. The average midweek bedtime is between 10pm and 11pm.
4. Two million e-mails are sent every minute in the UK.
5. Jackie magazine was named after author Jacqueline Wilson, who was a teenage journalist there when it launched.
6. The whitest place in England and Wales is Easington in County Durham.
7. Prison pay is on average £9.60 a week.
8. Zombies can't run because their ankles would snap.
9. Latvia has the highest cigarette tax in Europe, at 80% of the price. The UK level is 77%.
10. Households on average spend more on pets than they do on UK holidays.

(Source: BBC)

10 things we didn't know before the 9th week of 2008

1. 3% of plastic bags used in the UK are from Tesco.
2. Someone is deported every eight minutes, according to the Home Office.
3. In 1752, the day after 2 September was 14 September (which was when we switched to the Gregorian calender - ed).
4. Ugandan tribes recognise and deal with depression.
5. 70% of mental health inpatients are smokers.
6. For the first time in US history, more than one in every 100 American adults is behind bars.
7. There are 200-300 earthquakes in the UK every year.
8. Teenagers are having fewer babies.
9. Web browser Netscape Navigator once commanded 90% of internet traffic. Now it is 0.6%.
10. It is possible to donate half a liver.

(Source: BBC)