Research findings are frequently reported incorrectly.

Two recent editorial items illustrate the problem, which has been going on ever since I can remember. The first was a story in B&T published on 17 March (http://www.bandt.com.au/news/41/0C05F541.asp). The story reported that SBS had conducted a series of research reports into consumer TV viewing habits, ‘which have been drilled down as far as to determine that heavy coffee drinkers prefer Dateline, while World News Australia attracts red wine drinkers.'

This article on market research findings, which connects consumption of products with viewership and readership, has the potential to be extremely misleading. For example, someone says consumers of X read magazine A when it is actually correct to say ‘A [slightly] greater proportion of consumers of X read magazine A than read other magazines'.

Really, this is often just sloppy reporting and sometimes the variations referred to may not even be sufficiently significant from a marketing viewpoint. Factually, many X users do read other magazines also. The way in which it is reported can paint two quite different pictures - one untrue and one true.  

Then, in the ‘Topline' column in Research News last month, it was reported that women are more likely to want to hold onto everyday treats like chocolate (45% compared to 35% of males).

My view is that this finding is better reported as ‘slightly more women (45%) than men (35%) were likely to hold onto everyday treats like chocolate'.

Perhaps researchers interpret things adequately. But I have seen problems with some people in ad agencies who are inclined to be more superficial; who get hold of written statements and come to sweeping conclusions, such as ‘ALL women are more likely' and so on.

David Brent, head of BrandPlan, was the pioneer of the ad agency planning role in Australia in 1966

Print this page



Other Articles in this edition