Why I Like Being Wrong

10/27/2009

1 Comment

 
The other day a friend asked if I, like her husband, need to be right all the time. I took no umbrage. I am perfectly capable, on occasion, of being a typical male. But in this case I was able to honestly answer, "No."

Direct marketing is all about finding out what works. Much of the time this puts us in the position of finding out that some idea we thought up, cherished and defended fell flat when given its real-world test. And that's OK. The thrill of learning trumps any disappointment.

Besides, every time I find out I'm wrong about something, it's an opportunity to get it right. Which is an opportunity for personal growth. That's something I hope never to be done with.

I thought of Michael Shermer, who said, "I am a skeptic not because I don't want to believe, but because I want to know." Amen. 

Incidentally, her husband took no umbrage, either. He readily admitted to needing to be right all the time. I had to compliment him at being so humble about his dogmatism.

Steve Cuno
1 Comment
 

How a Skeptical Outlook Helps You Make Money

10/10/2009

0 Comments

 
If skepticism means "naysaying," we're already in trouble, since that's not how I use the word. 

For clarity's sake, then, I'll use the term "evidence-based thinking." EBT for short.

EBT is a marketer's silver bullet. It lets you rise above emotion and speculation as you evaluate a marketing effort from a scientific standpoint. Rather than rate a campaign by how well-liked it is by you, your focus groups, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Director's spouses, you can rate it in terms of (1) if it's making or costing money; (2) how it compares against other strategies; (3) how it performs down to cost-per-sale; (4) how to make it perform even better; and (5) reliable, projected future performance.

(If it's news to you that you really can measure effectiveness to that level of detail, you're not alone. Most clients and agencies don't know how. How to do EBT is a subject for another blog, not to mention an entire chapter in my book. For today's blog, I want to focus on the benefits of EBT.)

Granted, with a scientific or evidence-based approach, you risk learning that the cute campaign everyone loves isn't making money. Worse, you may learn that the cheesy campaign you hate is going gangbusters.

There are two ways to handle that information. If you're stubborn or insecure, you can stop measuring results—stop gathering evidence—in order to stick with your pet campaign, free from inconvenient data. Sadly, I have seen more than one client do exactly that.

Or, you can bid a tearful farewell to the cute campaign and go with what your market has shown, with their wallets, to be the better one.

Learning to let the evidence lead you to the facts is a discipline of its own. It's not always easy to do, in marketing or, for that matter, in life. But if you're more interested in knowing than supposing, then skepticism or evidence-based thinking can be your greatest tool.

Steve Cuno
Add Comment
 

Two New Laws of Nature

09/19/2009

0 Comments

 
I have discovered two laws of nature, possibly heretofore unknown:

1. No matter how thoroughly you clean out a toaster, crumbs will fall out of it when you so much as touch it.

2. The less people know about a subject, the more readily they will take an extreme position and the more aggressively they will defend it. This is as true in marketing as it is in public policy.

Steve Cuno

Add Comment
 

The Trouble with News Media

09/15/2009

0 Comments

 
American newspapers were the original news medium. They weren’t businesses then. They were the voice of self-appointed watchdogs who published as they felt moved. King George getting out of hand? Run the presses. Nothing going on? Leave ‘em off.

Today the news media are businesses. To survive, they must generate audiences large and suitable enough to attract advertising dollars. They do this by publishing or airing according to a schedule, rather than as needed, and by giving the market what it wants to consume. This last point is crucial. Any sense of mission—be it watchdog or other—is subject to market demands. A mission at odds with ratings will necessitate either compromising the mission in order to survive, or going out of business. (Unless, of course, a news medium happens to have unlimited funds of its own, profitability be damned. Last count, not too many were in this category.)

Which means that, despite what you’d like to think, chances are your (or, in fairness, my) favorite news source isn’t your favorite because it’s unbiased and balanced. And it may not be as committed to your point of view as it would have you think. More likely, enough people see the world your way to make it profitable for that news source to give you the news the way you are most apt to embrace it. If you and the masses who think like you suddenly and permanently change your perspective, you can bet your favorite news source will adapt rather than fight you.

These days, the effects of markets on the news media are hard to miss. The low cost of distributing information via the Internet has taken its toll on costlier media, to wit, broadcast and print. With viewers and subscribers down, ad revenues have dropped. Thus these media have been forced to make cuts. And what do they cut first? Not advice, sports or entertainment. These still draw. No, they cut investigative reporting--because the public doesn’t demand sound information. Illustrations abound. Half of U.S. citizens still believe that Saddam Hussein was a coconspirator in the 9/11 attacks. Most cannot name even three of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, but can name all five members of a cartoon family by the name of Simpson.

Thus at a time when information is at its most accessible, we risk being at our most uninformed.

The mission of today’s media is to find out what we want—and give it to us. The media have strayed so far from their original mission that today many in our society actually decry the watchdog function. Consider the acrimony with which many spit out the term, “liberal media.” Whether or not you embrace liberal policy—another matter altogether—you should thank your lucky stars for liberal media, because they dare to challenge the status quo. Without them, the American Revolution might not have happened, or have been significantly delayed. Slavery would have continued longer, possibly to our day. Blacks and women might still be denied the right to vote. And Hitler might be living in cozy retirement.

We need not be helpless. In the immortal and recent words of scientist and author Michael Shermer, “I am a skeptic not because I do not want to believe but because I want to know.” If you want to know, dig! Don’t cede your mind to one news source that caters to you by feeding you what you already believe. Consult numerous sources. Check their sources. Examine alternate points of view as expressed by those who hold them, not as reported by their opponents. Set aside emotion and bias as you ferret out and weigh facts for yourself. Do so and you will vastly increase your odds of arriving at an informed rather than a manipulated conclusion. It’s not foolproof. But it beats remaining a slave to a market-driven point of view.

Steve Cuno
Add Comment
 
Forward >>