Over the past 33 years we’ve paid tribute to a lot of Measurement Menaces of the Month. Many of them were not much more than malingerers, guilty of measurement misdemeanors at worst. But a few Menaces are truly menaces to our industry, and even society. Here are our Most Dastardly Measurement Supervillains of the last 30 years.
1. Rudy Giuliani, and other politicians that lie
We named Mr. Giuliani our Measurement Menace of the Month back in 2007 for fudging numbers and faking statistics to advance his then candidacy for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. At the time, we said, “He’s using numbers to sound credible (and that we applaud), but the numbers he’s citing are flat out wrong. Ultimately he’s destroying not just his own credibility but the credibility of anyone who frequently cites statistics.”
In the ensuing decades he clearly hasn’t changed his habits. Even worse, other politicians have learned that throwing out false statistics can be effective. Those numbers get picked up by media outlets and work their way into people’s heads.
Also back then we said, “The good news is that in this new world of hyper-transparency, he can’t get away with it for long.” Obviously, we were wrong about that. It’s clear now that a great many people tend to believe what they want to believe, and will eagerly accept falsehoods as truth if they fit their world view or preconceived notions. The last four years have proven that politicians who lie often suffer few consequences for their dishonesty.
This may be the biggest menace to impact our industry and our society in all the decades I’ve been in business. The more people doubt data, statistics, and facts, the less credibility folks like us will have. And if you doubt that, read the results of the most recent NPR Marist poll that found that 24% believe that voter fraud is the biggest threat to the 2020 election, despite there being zero evidence that it’s a major problem. Sadly, the less our society respects the truth and believes the lies, the more we are subject to the manipulations of anyone with an agenda.
2. Misleading and false influence measures
We named Klout a Measurement Menace of the Month back in 2011, fearing the real world implications of hiring and firing based on a number that reflected nothing more than social media activity. I augmented my lament with this rant about how advertisers were mistakenly using it to target journalists.
So we weren’t sorry at all to learn of Klout’s demise. After being acquired by Lithium in 2014, its new parent company pulled the plug in May 2018.
Unfortunately many other faux influence scores have popped up, including the worst of the worst: “earned media value.” Clearly, we still have work to do to rid our industry of these menaces.
3. Bad polling data
Three presidential elections ago we named bad polling data a Measurement Menace of the Month. Since then, FiveThirtyEight and countless other statistical gurus have done their best to educate us on which polls to pay attention to and which we can ignore. Yet the media and political pundits continue to mislead us by citing bad polling data.
At this point in the presidential election cycle the only polls that now count are those of high quality in key early primary states. National polls are irrelevant. But that doesn’t stop everybody and their brother from quoting whatever poll makes them or their chosen candidate look best.
Of course, it is only human nature to pay attention to poll data that reinforces our preferences. We wish it was the nature of more humans to take the time to interpret polls and understand the limits of their value.
4. The fallacy of one magic measurement number
For most of the last decade many PR “experts” complained that there was no “standard” measurement for PR. As a result, some of us have spent the better part of the last decade explaining that there can not possibly be a single number, for the very simple reason that there is no single objective for PR.
Some PR programs are intended to advocate for a cause, a message, or a positioning. Others are designed to bring in leads or supporters. Still others are designed to quash ideas or protestors. There clearly can’t be a single number to measure the effectiveness of all these programs, because the nature of the metric depends on the objective of the program.
The good news is that, increasingly, PR and communication professionals are starting to see the light. I’d love to think that it’s my brilliant writing and oratory. 🙂 But the actual explanation is that the right data and the right analysis have become more and more available. Use them to measure messages, engagement, quality, and targeted reach all together if you want to understand the value that you are providing to your organization. ∞
