Turning News Into Knowledge

As I was about cast my vote to decide which party should govern the province of Ontario for the next four years, I decided to do a quick assessment of what issue mattered most to Twitter nation.

Hands down the number one issue was the economy, which by chance happened to be what a recent poll by Nanos Research said. That’s not a lot different from the results of similar issues-based tracking we did for the federal election earlier this year.

If so, this doesn’t bode well for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. Unlike the ruling Liberals, they didn’t make this issue their No. 1 focus.

Pollster Frank Graves, from EKOS Research, has even gone as far as to predict a Liberal majority. No one would have predicted this at the start of the campaign.

This election seems much different than the federal contest earlier this year, when we said there would be a high level  of unpredictability amongst the electorate. This is mainly because the issues are a lot clearer this time around — especially on the economy. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, they failed to pick up on this.

Most are predicting a slim Liberal majority or minority government and I would have to concur with that assessment.

The only prediction I will make regarding tonight’s federal contest is that while there will be some winners, there will be mostly losers – and this goes beyond the politicians.

Many pollsters and pundits, as well, are staking their reputations on tonight’s outcome.

The 2006 Canadian federal election essentially made Nanos Research what it is, after Nik Nanos accurately predicted a conservative minority. But the game has changed.

Tonight could also be very historic. If the polls are right, for the first time the NDP may be in opposition – might even have an outside chance of forming a government. Recently, EKOS research tabulated a three-point difference between the Conservatives and NDP. But other pollsters, such as Nanos, have a bit wider spread.

But what role have phenomena such as vote mobs played, and has social media had an effect?

At the beginning of the campaign activity on Twitter and other social was predictable. Early on Mark Blevis wrote an article in the Ottawa Citizen, stating that this was “not the Twitter Election”:

Anecdotally, the political discussion on Twitter is still taking place within an echo chamber. That is, most of the political discussions involve journalists, pundits, interest groups, the politically engaged, and – yes – even politicians. The average Canadian? Not so much.

Personally, I agree with him. But there also seems to be a major call to action for political change on Twitter, leaning heavily in the NDP’s favour.

By far, the most linked web page over the last two days (1000-plus links so far) is an open letter by Jack Layton urging people to vote NDP and vote for change – essentially a call to action. However, as Mr. Blevis wrote, it’s bouncing around in that “echo chamber” we talked about.

How many opinions are really being changed? Or is it instead helping to engage a demographic predisposed to voting NDP, but not necessarily predisposed to voting in general? If that’s the case, Twitter and other social media is more of a call to action – much like vote mobs.

Or maybe social media is encouraging other, already politically engaged people to engage others.

No one knows for sure. Most do believe vote mobs have had an effect – but for which party? The Liberals were polling ahead of the NDP at the height of the vote mobs’ popularity.

Also, we know that media does have an effect on behaviour and at last count, 31 publications had endorsed the Conservatives and only two the NDP. Yet overwhelmingly, social media has been pro-NDP according to our data.

All I know is I would hate to be a pollster right now. It seems this is a high-stakes game of predictions, with everyone doubling down on their reputations.

Regardless, there will be a lot to learn from this election and MediaMiser is happy to sit back with its data and analyze the tea leaves after the dust settles, and along the way. This is what motivated us to set up the MediaMiser Twitter Publication Elections counter – we’ve learned a great deal already through trial, error and experimentation with the collected data.

That said, to all candidates good luck and to all eligible citizens, get the vote out.

With the growing influence of social media and the growing dominance of online news media, do news editorial positions still matter?

In 2006, Angela Jeffrey, David Michaelson, and Don W. Stacks published a case study that drew a correlation between news editorials and their ability to encourage women to have mammograms.

A pie graph of the top ten most Tweeted online Globe and Mail stories over the past 24 hours.

The study showed that, indeed, editorials had an overwhelming influence on behaviour. But with the rapidly changing media landscape and emergence of social media and ubiquitous online news, is this still true?

Firstly, it’s important to note that not all issues resonate equally. But in this case, I was motivated to write this post based on the latest developments within the MediaMiser election Twitter chart.

Last week, MediaMiser launched a page on its website displaying a chart tracking the influence of traditional Canadian news web sites on Twitter.

The information is harvested in near real-time from the MediaMiser’s monitoring and analysis solution.

For the past week, the chart showed CBC as the most referenced news site on Twitter regarding the federal election. However, last night, the chart showed The Globe and Mail overtook CBC for top spot.

I decided use the MediaMiser platform to find out why.

Interestingly, the major driver was The Globe and Mail‘s editorial endorsement of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

In the past 24 hours, the editorial comprised half the tweeted links to the Globe for their top ten stories. It tweeted almost 14 times more often than CBC’s top story, a blog post by Kady O’Malley on the bogus Ignatieff photo.

On a related note, a Globe live chat page on the topic of why the Globe endorsed the Conservatives was the tenth-most Tweeted link.

So do editorials still have an influence? Only time will tell what effect, if any, The Globe and Mail‘s endorsement will have on the electorate. But in this case, the editorial definitely had effect on motivating individuals to tweet.

The top ten most-Tweeted Globe stories of the past 24 hours were:

1. The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges
2. Whiz kid Patrick Muttart leaves Tory campaign after fake Ignatieff photo flap
3. Soaring Layton outpaces Harper in leadership rankings
4. Layton jumps well ahead of Ignatieff as voters get off ‘the political couch‘
5. On the Internet, it’s anybody but Harper
6. NDP candidate takes mid-campaign vacation in Vegas
7. Now within six points of Harper, Layton faces ‘trial by fire’
8. Sun Media honcho calls out ex-Harper operative on bogus Ignatieff Iraq photo
9. Election Ringside, April 27: Prime Minister Jack Layton?
10. Why did the Globe endorse the Conservatives?

A story on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen today featured this headline:

Media monitoring trumps polling spending; Government more interested in what media says than in opinion of average voter.

This story by Glen McGregor immediately and not surprisingly captured my attention since MediaMiser builds technology and offers services for media monitoring and analysis. I certainly was interested in the reporter’s take on how the Government of Canada has been moving resources from public opinion polling to media monitoring.

The headline, however, like many others in the news, seemed worded to provoke rather than to illuminate. Not a problem I thought. The headline’s job, after all, is not to tell the story, but rather to draw in the reader. It’s the lead’s job to take us to the heart of the story. Unfortunately, I do have some issues with the lead.

Media monitoring is not used for research

First, media monitoring is not used for research purposes. The role of media monitoring is to keep decision makers, including government staff, up to speed with current events and the nature of media coverage on those events.

This is something MediaMiser does very well. In fact, our technology and services have enabled our public-sector clients to both spend less money on resources and obtain better information for government decision-makers.

Media analysis is used for research

In-depth media analysis is where the research component happens. This is something MediaMiser is very familiar with, and we’re very good at it. When we developed our technology 8+ years ago, our main objective was to turn news into knowledge. That’s what we did for our first clients and what we still do for the majority of our current clients, most of whom, interestingly enough, reside in the private sector.

The reason why media analysis is so important is not just because it’s just cost effective, but also because it, unlike polling, can provide clients with the intelligence they need very quickly.  Media analysis, done right, also supplies the type of insight polls can’t offer.

For example, before the last recession, most polls were reporting a high public confidence in the economy. At the same time, media gatekeepers were taking a decidedly less rosy view and sending out warning signals. Unfortunately, many governments tended to put their faith in the public polls. The rest is history.

Also, within the Canadian government, we have seen, time and again, polls not being able to predict which way public opinion will shift. Case in point, Canada’s long-form census debate only became an issue when the media reported on it. It wasn’t until the media educated the public that most Canadians became aware of the role the long-form census played in government and business decision making. To be fair, others empathized with the government’s stated intent to protect privacy.

As media monitoring and analysis firms tracked the issue, most of us were able to measure public opinion on the issue as it played out in social media.

Social media means spending more dollars

One thing not addressed in the Citizen story is the amount of money dedicated to monitoring social media where individual opinions are expressed in nanoseconds. As we have seen recently in Egypt, Iran, and in Canada’s own G20 gathering, when the public speaks in large numbers through Twitter, Facebook, and other social media channels, wise governments sit up and take notice. In fact, when social media is properly analyzed, the voice of the people comes through loud and clear. However, monitoring and analyzing social media, while very effective, is not cheap. Monitoring and analysis firms are continually making big investments in software, hardware, and people. Working with vast amounts of information, requires a lot of computing power, but I believe that ultimately this computing power is far more cost effective than polling.

Much of the monitoring budgets are paid to content providers

Ironically, part of Glen McGregor’s salary is subsidized by corporate clients such as the Government of Canada. Like other monitoring and analysis clients, the government has to pay royalties to such media companies as Postmedia, the Ottawa Citizen’s owner. No complaints here. It’s only fair that the media be compensated for intellectual property. If the government were to acquire that content without paying, it would breaking its own copyright laws.

Conclusion

Yes, polling is still a valuable piece to the research puzzle. However, with the emergence of new technologies and the growing importance of social media, the role of other types of research-gathering methodologies should be neither ignored nor condemned. If they are, it will be to the detriment of society and the new transparency that comes to the forefront with every tweet and every media story.

Personally I don’t believe “departments are left to formulate policy in the dark.” They simply are applying something most people already know. Traditional and social media not only provide us with knowledge that helps form our opinions but also reflect what the public is thinking.

Furthermore, in some cases, the social media space is fast creating a 21^st century alternative to yesterday’s sample population universe.

Over the past year and a half, Kelly Rusk, our Marketing and Communities Manager, has been a prominent voice and face of our firm on this blog and elsewhere in social media and marketing/communications circles.

Kelly has accepted a position with Ottawa marketing agency Thornley Fallis and will be leaving us on Dec. 2.  American author and radio personality Garrison Keillor sums up our good wishes:  “Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.”

We appreciate all the good work Kelly has done for us.  She has been a respected and valued member of the MediaMiser family.

While we’re sad to see her go, we will accept this advice from Dr. Seuss:  “Don’t cry because it’s over.  Smile because it happened.”

All the best Kelly from all your friends at MediaMiser.

Laszlo Thoth/LiveJournal

Pie charts are very useful for representing data visually. However, there’s a danger that pie charts can be misunderstood.

I receive more questions about pie charts than any other charts. The reality is, people tend to have tunnel vision when seeing or relating data.

When it comes to share of voice, an organization’s share of attention in media coverage, people tend to see the values proportioned to a pie slice or ‘share of the voice’ as too low.

If multiple organizations are being analyzed for a competitive analysis report, the share of voice must be properly proportioned. There seems to be a tendency to over state the coverage of an organization — especially when that organization is yours.

For example, if we are measuring the share of voice in one article for an issue against four companies and assuming that all four companies are mentioned equally, every company can’t  have a share of voice of 100 per cent.

The reality is, each company should get only 25 per cent. Generally, this is very easy for most people to see. The problem arises when multiple articles or coverage is involved.

If a company shows up in 67 per cent of the articles, many people assume that company should have 67 per cent of the share of voice. Again, if multiple companies are involved, the share of voice needs to be properly portioned in relation to the other companies.

In this case, the addition of a bar chart could help prevent confusion, since it’s easier to compare values.

Here are some other helpful hints to improve comprehension of your pie charts:

• Make sure the segments of your charts are ordered from largest to smallest.
• Avoid amounts and use percentages.
• 3D charts look cool, but 2D charts are clearer.
• Make sure a pie chart is appropriate for the data you are trying to communicate.
• Creating an ‘Other’ slice might be more appropriate if you have too many slices or if you have many slices with not much data (people can’t relate to .5 of a per cent.)

Remember, even though you need to be careful when using pie charts, they still can be effective, fun, and in some cases, delicious.

Operation Mincemeat

Malcolm Gladwell is truly a gifted, talented, and insightful person. He’s a best-selling author who challenges the way we perceive things and does his best to uncover the truth where we least expect it.

Gladwell wrote the best selling books The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, and What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures.

In all honesty, he is inspiration to my own endeavors in regards to what I want to achieve with my company through the development of our product MediaMiser Enterprise and our accompanying services. However, on May 10, 2010, Gladwell’s essay for the New Yorker caught the attention of Wesley Wark, a visiting research professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

The essay, Pandora’s Briefcase, was on a very intriguing book by Ben Macintrye called Operation Mincemeat: How a Dead Man and a Bizarre Plan Fooled the Nazis and Assured an Allied Victory. Macintrye’s book tells the true story of how the British fooled the Nazis during the Second World War by planting false information on a corpse wearing the uniform of a royal marine officer.  A briefcase was conveniently handcuffed to the dead body and personal letters and effects were placed in the pockets.

The ruse more than likely saved thousands of lives during operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily, and at the same time helped shorten the war.

Essentially, British Intelligence convinced the Nazis that instead of the Allies invading Sicily, they were to invade the less obvious target of Greece. Gladwell uses this story to dismiss the value of both spies, secrets, and intelligence network.

Instead of espousing the virtues of a well-run intelligence agency and the folly of not having one, he chose to use the example of Operation Mincemeat as why intelligence networks are actually a counter productive liability.

The essay motivated Wark to write his own piece, which appeared in the opinion section of the Ottawa Citizen on May 25, 2010.

Wark, like myself, sees value in Gladwell’s unconventional wisdom, even going so far as to complement Gladwell by writing

the world of intelligence and warfare could use a touch of the Gladwellian.

However, Wark disagrees with Gladwell’s assessment of Operation Mincemeat and even rebukes the unconventional wisdom that in the past has served Gladwell, also writing

his unconventional wisdom can be less than wise.

My first instinct was to agree whole-heartedly with Wark – especially since MediaMiser specializes in analysis. But, in the spirit of being open minded, I decided to purchase a copy of “Operation Mincemeat” as well as read Gladwell’s essay.

After consuming both, not only did it confirm my instinct that Wark was right, it also uncovered a point that was clearly missed by both Gladwell’s essay and Wark’s rebuttal.

Operation Mincemeat was not just about the importance that intelligence can play, it also highlighted the importance of having a well orchestrated marketing or communication plan that can be properly analyzed from start to finish.

Essentially, British Intelligence was selling a concept to Nazi Intelligence that they (the Nazis) were in the market for and more than happy to buy.

Gladwell dismisses the whole operation as a bunch of ‘what ifs’ and dwells on how lucky the allies were that Operation Mincemeat didn’t backfire. Also, to further strengthen his own argument, Gladwell even questions whether the operation actually had an effect on the outcome of the invasion, suggesting Nazi high command may have had their own preconceived notions about the invasion being in Greece.

By doing so, Gladwell overlooks the genius of what British Intelligence actually accomplished and not only does he dismiss the obvious value of intelligence agencies, but inadvertently, the value of current day marketing and communication groups as well.

Operation Mincemeat was not just a hairbrain idea that was set in motion by its creators like a toy boat dropped into the currents of a stream and haphazardly reached the intended destination.

The odds of success were stacked in British Intelligences favour, because they were in control every step of the way by having clear objectives, properly researching the opportunity, and constantly analyzing the results and making adjustments along the way.

This is no different from conducting a successful marketing or communications plan:

1) For you to sell a product or to communicate a concept or idea, you must first find a market for your product or an audience willing to listen to you.

This is what the British did: They found a Nazi agent who was looking for something he desperately wanted to believe was true. It wasn’t by luck the false information found it’s way to Major Karl-Erich Kühlenthal, the Nazi agent.

If fact, both Gladwell and Macintyre, refer to Kühlenthal as “a one-man espionage disaster area.”

The British knew this because they did their homework. The planted information wasn’t found by Kühlenthal by accident.

There is even a passage in Operation Mincemeat attributed to Michael Handel, intelligence historian:

It is very unusual and very difficult for deception to create new concepts for an enemy. It is much easier and more effective to reinforce those which already exist.

2) It isn’t enough to find a market. You must be able to package the goods for sale and effectively communicate them to your target audience.

Again, the British did their homework and left nothing to chance. They ensured consistency by going to tremendous lengths to invent a plausible history for the body, placing personal letters in its uniform, forging id cards, and actually having a double agent confirm the legitimacy of the body back to the Nazis.

3) Once you’ve sold your product, you must constantly monitor and analyze to ensure your message was properly communicated.

The British went to great lengths to monitor and analyze how their disinformation was being perceived by the Nazis. They were even able to forensically tell not only whether documents where read, but how they were read.

4) Monitor and analyze in real time and adjust your strategy accordingly.

Again, the success of Operation Mincemeat was not accidental. Some Germans and Italians were wise to the possibility of a ruse. To British Intelligence’s credit, they were able to adjust their strategy with new or modified tactics.

The British used tactics such as creating fake maps, bogus invasion forces, and employing Greek personnel.

Bletchley Park, the British Intelligence’s information centre that was responsible for decrypting and interpreting enemy messages, insured the deception was taking hold by intercepting and analyzing Nazi communications.

To prevent the body from being exhumed from its burial site, they placed a headstone and had mourners constantly visit the site not only as a way to deter Nazi agents from trying to corroborate the facts, but also to monitor the site and make sure nothing was disturbed.

If the gravesite were disturbed, it would be an indication that Nazis Intelligence was skeptical.

5) Evaluate your efforts.

After the invasion, a post mortem (no pun intended), was conducted on the success of the operation. Just like any good marketing or communication plan, it’s imperative that the final results should be measured.

Finally, I find it ironic that Gladwell points out that many of the British Intelligence agents went on to become celebrated authors, such as Ian Fleming.

Gladwell uses this to say that intelligence agents are their best own publicists and have tendency to ‘self-affirm’ their exploits. This is why we believe there is value in intelligence agencies and spies.

However, maybe if Gladwell also read The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington, he would see that not all spies ended up being world famous authors.

One military intelligence agent, David Ogilvy (founder of Ogilvy & Mather), later became an advertising, PR, and marketing pioneer. Ogilvy was actually recruited by spymaster William Stephenson for his work with George Gallup, where he helped to pioneer polling data. Ogilvy would later use polling data, while working with British Intelligence, to help change US attitudes towards supporting Britain during the war. After the War, Ogilvy would go on to create one of the best known advertising, marketing, and PR firms.

Gladwell finishes off his essay by writing, “the next time a briefcase washes up onshore, don’t open it.”

What Gladwell should have wrote is, “next time a briefcase washes up onshore, analyze the hell out of it and exploit it for its true value.”

That’s what David Ogilvy would have done and this is one of the reasons why market research, marketing, and good analysis saved the Free World.

Just before 9:00 a.m. June 6, 2010, a couple MediaMiser staff and myself boarded a VIA train to Union Station in Toronto.

We were headed to the IABC World Conference in Toronto.

For those who don’t know what the IABC is, the acronym stands for the International Association of Business Communicators, which I and few other MediaMiser staff are members of.

IABC is an association that promotes and encourages excellence among those engaged in communicating to both internal and/or external publics, whether it’s PR, marketing, advertising, media production or human resources.

It doesn’t matter to whom you communicate; as long as you are in the business of communicating messages, IABC is an organization that helps in the art of getting your point across.

Therefore, this is not only a conference MediaMiser should be attending to learn how we can better build products to aid in the process of communication, but is one that, from a business perspective, we should be exhibiting at.

As soon as we got to Toronto, we quickly got settled into our accommodations and headed out to see the Blue Jays play the New York Yankees. Our staff works hard and we need to give back to them every chance we get.

On that note, Yankees won 4-3 ): However, Blue Jays took the series 2-1 (:

Next we headed out to the opening conference events. From a business perspective, the welcome session at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) was the most valuable.  Both the food and atmosphere at the ROM was excellent. Most importantly, we were able to meet other attendees and exhibitors.

I met both prospective and current clients, and other people with whom I shared a professional interest. Being able to establish a rapport with them could be very important in the days to come.

Monday, June 7

On Monday, our team was able to quickly set up our booth and demos. We had a good position on the exhibitor floor with good traffic, and IABC did an amazing job to promote the exhibitors. They had passport cards that people needed to get stamped, which was an excellent idea. My only criticism is that free WIFI should have been supplied to everyone at the conference. This would have enhanced both the conference organizers and exhibitors ability to reach out to the attendees.

Awards Gala

The 2010 Gold Quill Awards gala, which recognizes outstanding communication projects, was well organized and entertaining. Terry O’Reilly, CBC host for the The Age of Persuasion, was an excellent choice to MC the event.

Again, full marks to IABC.

The Next Day – Tuesday

IABC continued to impress us with the quality of speakers and, again, the continued support of exhibitors.

I was very impressed with Craig Kielburger, a Canadian activist for the rights of children — especially since he stood to talk to people for over an hour. He came across as genuine and passionate about his cause.

At the end of the day we packed up our booth quickly and planned to do the Toronto Dine-Around event. Attendees who signed up for Dine-Around event could make reservations at various restaurants in the Toronto core with other attendees. However, our team decided to go to a private product launch party hosted by Caroline Kealey of Ingenuim Communications.  Caroline created a very impressive PR planning tool, Results Map, of which I was able to get a quick demo.

The last day

As the rain came down that day and barricades for the G20 conference were going up, it seemed to signal it was time to leave.

The conference finished with a keynote by Guy Kawasaki, formally of Apple. It was entertaining, and I learned that MediaMiser was positioned high and to the right (Those who attended the keynote will get the reference).

With that parting thought, I was satisfied that the IABC conference was a resounding success.

MediaMiser Booth at the IABC World Conference

As we get down to the short strokes and anticipation builds, the question is, who will light the Olympic Cauldron?

Chances are, this decision was made long ago and it’s one of the best kept secrets of these Olympic games.

Speculation has run rampant in both traditional and social media. A poll conducted Feb 1-2 by Angus Reid and commissioned by TSN and the Globe and Mail, found the most popular choice to light the cauldron was hockey great Wayne Gretzky at 25 per cent. Paraplegic athlete Rick Hansen was next at 17per cent, followed by Cindy Klassen and then Nancy Greene.

Betty Fox, mother of National hero Terry Fox, was 6th at 10 per cent.  Recently, however, there has been a big push through social media for Betty Fox to light the cauldron. A group created on Facebook urging organizers to pick Betty Fox has nearly 120,000 members and support on Twitter is growing.

So why was Betty Fox 10 per cent in the survey if there is such an outpouring of support on Facebook and Twitter?

Well, first it’s important to note that Betty Fox was 24 per cent in her home province of BC. Also, the survey was done at the beginning of the month and support for her has recently started to take root.

Therefore, the issue seems to be that Betty Fox and her son Terry, have just recently started to creep back into our National consciousness.

During the month of January, leading up to the poll, Betty Fox received less than 2 per cent of the new coverage Gretzky received. However, during this time the lighting of the cauldron was also the furthest thing from the media’s focus. Of all stories that dealt with Betty Fox and Gretzky, less than 2 per cent of the combined stories focused on the lighting of cauldron.

Justifiably, the media’s focus was pointed at issues such as disaster relief in Haiti and, coincidentally, Gretzky was involved with a telethon to help provide support to Haiti. In the month of January over 25 per cent of coverage that Gretzky received was in regards to the telethon.

Also, being in the throes of hockey season and the World Juniors you don’t require analysis to see where the lion share of his other coverage went.

However, with 5 days to go until the lighting of the cauldron, all of a sudden, people and the media started to take notice and the issue has become a hot subject. During the last 5 days, Betty Fox has received 12 times the amount of coverage.

Betty Fox's print coverage for the Month of February.

In my opinion, if a poll was taken today, Betty Fox would be the overwhelming choice, because of the influence that traditional media has and the polarizing effect social media has to change opinion.

Also, the reason why most people chose Gretzky back in February was the influence of the media, simply because at the time, because of other coverage, he was more in our National consciousness. However, as we get closer to the lighting of the cauldron, people will think more of who will light it.

The decision that I believe was already made long ago, will be what most people would have ultimately chosen once they had time to discuss and think about the issue, and I believe it will be Betty Fox.

I just finished a book called The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington.

I chose the book for enjoyment, not for work. Ironically, however, like most books I read, I can somehow apply what I read to my professional life.

I thought this book would be different. However, I was wrong.

What do spies have to do with media analysis or building an application to support such efforts?

Well, believe it or not, media people (entrepreneurs, journalists, and corporate communicators) made the best spies. Ian Fleming, author of the James Bond novels, was a journalist  for Reuters news service before he was recruited as a British spy. However, probably the most notable communications professional turned spy was David Ogilvy, the founder of Ogilvy & Mather, a worldwide advertising, marketing and public relations agency.

Before Ogilvy was recruited, he was heavily involved in Gallup’s Audience Research Institute.

Ogilvy was recruited to help the British leverage both polling and media data to help sway American sentiment towards supporting the Allied cause against Nazi aggression. To some, this might represent a misuse of data. However, the early part of WWII was a dark time and required desperate actions.

One of the quotes recited in the book and attributed to Ogilvy was: “I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

Ogilvy believed heavily in research and in fact, used his research skills to successfully convince the American people to support the war effort. He also used those research skills to make Ogilvy & Mather a household name and very successful agency.

Ogilvy was not telling people to ignore research data, he was telling people to use it properly.

This statement does not just extend to marketing executives, it also applies to professional communicators who like most of us, are too willing to use research data to make ourselves look good instead of using it to help make unbiased and sober business decisions.

Just as British intelligence could not afford bad information from its people, business can ill afford bad information from business communicators.

As Ogilvy so succinctly stated, research is for illumination, not for support. If the research soberly supports your point, so be it. However, too often information is abused and like the British and the world as whole during WWII, misrepresenting information would have had disastrous consequences.