The Horror – Final Thoughts On Research.

As is often the case when one takes a position for or against something, there are persons who do not find themselves in agreement. This is for one of three reasons, not all of which are mutually exclusive: 1) Misreading of the expression of the position, 2) a genuine disagreement with the position, and 3) because the position advocated or opposed suggests change, and “…the innovator has for his enemies those who did well under the old conditions.”

Alas, a body can only do something about the first two and little, if anything, about the last.

So I will make an attempt here to address the first two, and I will pass the third over in silence, as I believe in this case it has no bearing here.

I did not say, nor do I believe, that too much research is a problem. The more, the merrier.

Nor do I say that there is a problem with the research (specifically here the Site Affinity study from comScore). Though there are plenty of problems with the industry in general, as there are with many endeavors, I wasn’t interested in addressing them.

I agree that BAD RESEARCH is a problem, but I don’t think that the research done here is bad.

I wasn’t trying to say, nor did I, that there was anything WRONG with the affinity research; just that it seems sort of absurd given that there are so many more important things for the business to be focused on.

And I wholeheartedly agree that study, ongoing study, is a valuable thing. I do not suggest it is not. But look at it this way.

If the house is on fire, do I first expend my resources trying to figure out how to put the fire out, or do I instead spend time determining why the fire started burning in the first place?

This kind of research is almost like figuring out whether or not water is wet enough to put out the fire.

We know water is wet. And, unless it is a chemical fire or a metal fire, water works just fine. I don’t need a study to tell me that in the heat of the moment (no pun intended).

A reader pointed out to me that one should use intelligence rather than bias when trying to solve a problem. The connection being that choice of media properties being done based on bias is no substitute for making decisions based on intelligence.

I agree. It is true that “bias” should never supercede “intelligence.” But this was not an example of either, nor does it have the effect of giving preference to one over another. It feels like the result of resource that could have been better spent on other things telling me that water is wet, ice is cold, and getting punched in the nose hurts.

Knowing that getting hit in the nose hurts and wishing to avoid getting hit in the nose is not bias.

I appreciate nerding out just as much as the next guy, but we are in a BUSINESS, and some activities have to have PRACTICAL applications that can give cause to more immediate realizations of the business’s needs.

I don’t think the research done was useless (I have had clients who need this kind of thing to get them in motion). And who knows? Maybe another study can be done to see whether or not the effect of this last study positively impacted business. But I do think that there is need for other kinds of efforts to take precedence over this one. After all we’re still squawking about standards, definitions, and Reach & Frequency.

Wouldn’t time and money be better spent nailing this stuff down before handing out grants for studying the effects of bovine flatulence first?

By Jim Meskauskas
Courtesy of http://www.MediaPost.com