Been thinking a lot about the Big Data thing recently and a. how reminiscent it is of the CRM goldrush (follow the money, as the man said) and b. how dubious much of the thinking being trotted out - about people, organisations and measurement.
And oh, little things about how advertising and marketing actually work - a clue, it's not like this...
So here's a piece that Alex and I wrote for the upcoming issue of Admap - free download for a while!
Nice piece here with Dave Brailsford, the "architect" of British Cyclng success
2 interesting thoughts emerge :
1. he uses the "chimp" metaphor (like "Monkey Brain") to denote the non-human bit of ruminating consciousness which distracts us from the "flow" states that athletic performance depends on (i.e. by denigrating the human bit to animal).
2. he talks about the way doping spread through cycling but without pathologising individual dopers (quite hard given the hullabaloo surrounding it recently) or - if I understand him correctly - in blaming the thing thing.
So it is 10 years ago this week that I first formally presented what I called the HERD hypothesis in written form (see above) at the Market Research Society in Birmingham (for which incidentally I shared the Best New Thinking Prize). Since then - together with a number of brilliant folk - we've managed to evolve and "operationalise" the basic insight at the heart of this paper, with 2 more books, prizes from the nice people at WPP, ESOMAR and Emerald Insight along the way, a host of well-liked articles and some fascinating conversations and experiences with people I'm not sure I'd have met otherwise.
It hasn't all been plain sailing - I have endured any number of pats on the head ("interesting but not really mainstream"), some strange challenges ("OK for kids marketing & poor people - maybe abroad?") and occasionally some hostile responses ("we don't believe that monkey shit round here" being my favourite).
But gradually, over those 10 years things have changed: not least thanks to the explosion of "social media" which has made arguing for the importance of social influence in shaping human (and consumer behaviour) so much easier (praise the Lord for Mr Z for this at least).
And collaborating with brilliant people - especially Professor Alex Bentley - to turn the analytic techniques developed across the social sciences into practical tool for marketers and decision-makers has been an unexpected but wholly positive pleasure. Back in 2007, we first developed a 4 box map based on patterns to be found in
And now 10 years on, a number of folk have picked up and recycled
the work we've been doing (which is exactly how things work and spread),
mostly (but not always) attributing sources. So if for example you find someone presenting one of these* over the next few days and weeks,...
...you'll know what to think, won't you?
Yes, the HERD effect is at play...
Thank you all - Alex, Mike O'B, Hugh, Jason, Ray P, Gareth K, Kevin K, Kevin D, Nick K, John K, Alex B, Susan G, Tom E, Audrey, John W, Graeme W, Wendy, Angela, Sair, Mark B, Mark H, John, Fiona, Stephen, Giles, Ben, Geoff, Paul, Liz, Judie, Colin, Chris, Roddy, Peter M, Gemma, David, Bob B, Bob P, Claire, Anne & Merry.
Sorry I can't be at MRS to celebrate the 10 years anniversary but I'm sure it'll be fabulous!
*BTW the version here first developed by Alex & I in 2010 with Anomaly & Sony Europe
I've had a number of messages from folk over the last couple of days asking for my take on the terrible recent events in Connecticut.
Til now I've refrained from commmenting because it's incredibly hard to say anything without seeming crass or exploitative of the grief and sadness of those closer connected to the shootings than I am
And this difficulty is exacerbated by the broo-haha in both mainstream and social media.
So I wanted to make just a couple of points:
1. It's well documented that these kinds of massacres spread through copying (hence "copycat") rather than independent choice.
So, my American friends, if you want to stop this kind of thing happening again there are at least 2 kinds of thing you need to do together:
i. stop lionising the individuals who commit these kinds of acts in media coverage (both MSM and online)
ii. change the environment to make it harder for individuals to have access to the tools that make it easy to commit such crimes (and, yes, this means regulating the availability of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry - the kind of weapons that make it easier to kill lots of people at once...)
As is so often the case, being clear what kind of thing you're dealing with helps develop better responses to it...
Nice piece by the always excellent Victoria Coren in GQ this month exploring (for a male audience) the whole 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon. Here she discusses why women are reading it...
"You can shelve the idea of awkward
mimicry; women are not necessarily reading Fifty Shades
because they find it sexy anyway.They are reading it for two reasons. First: because everyone
else is. There comes a point when one simply has to join in for
fear of being left out. But I was the same about getting a
recycling bin, and that didn't turn me on much either"
Here's a piece I did for the CASRO 2012-13 Journal
(based on my keynote at their annual gathering in Scotssdale (page
42ff) based on an idea that the brilliant Grant McCracken gave me when I
last had lunch with him:
"TV chat show host David Letterman used to
play a game with his audience as he sifted the day’s ephemera, asking this
simple question of the things he (and his researchers) found to point and laugh
at: is this anything? Or, is it nothing? In other words, is the
object, behaviour or utterance significant and suggestive of an important
trend? Or, is it merely junk? Should we be paying attention to it or should we
smile and nod at contemporary culture’s richness as it sweeps past our noses"
So let's ask ourselves before we start "...what
kind of thing is the phenomenon we are studying and
seeking to explain [or change]? Is it something shaped by the agency of individuals acting
independently of their peers or is it something that’s shaped primarily by
social means – by the influence of others other than the individual?"