You can't rely on research |
| Print |
| Written by Harpers Editorial team | |||||
| Thursday, 05 June 2008 | |||||
|
Have you ever experienced an underwhelming sommelier describing Cava as ?Spanish Champagne?? It?s pedantic to point it out really. We let it pass as he charms the next table into a bottle of Pommard, "made with a blend of seductive grape varieties". But one man's pedantry is another's precision. And it's this kind of jaunty imprecision that allows us to distinguish the truly knowledgeable from the simply believable. For marketers, data performs a similar service. Like the underwhelming sommelier, it would be rude and pedantic to correct a marketing researcher who refers to "this data" when it is actually "these data". But "this data" is as wrong as "Spanish Champagne". It's an imprecision that leads the thoughtful to wonder how trustworthy the researcher's data really are. Sometimes, when you dig around those data, your doubts are confirmed. Because just as there isn't a blend of grapes in Pommard, there often isn't the meaning in data that researchers claim. Some research findings are vapid, imprecise or just plain wrong Around the London International Wine Fair, there were endless research reports, survey findings and "insights". Much - probably most - was useful, valid and insightful. But a bit of logic, a little digging around in the data and simple maths showed some of the research findings to be vapid, imprecise or plain wrong.
As the wine business grows, there is a greater demand for the objective knowledge that research can bring. "You can't manage what you can't measure" becomes an embedded mantra. Data, rather than personal hunches, become the justification for business decisions. But simply because someone has researched something doesn't mean we don't need to look at it critically. It's not just that internal and external marketing researchers are sometimes plain wrong. They're also sometimes asked to research vapid issues or extrapolate data beyond its limits by managers eager to justify poor decisions to bosses or investors in the future. Those involved in the commissioning, interpretation and application of research in the wine business need to spend a little more time asking: "Do I already know the answer?", "Will this help me make a better decision?" and "Is that actually what the data says?" Joe Fattorini is a journalist and wine writer for, among others, The Herald in Scotland
Share This
Email This
Comments (1)
![]()
Paul Hopkins
said:
|
|||||
|
Any one offended by this should never have lived or want to live in Australia. White Burgundy was a blend of Semillon Sauvignon Blanc, Chenin Blanc and Verdelho, Chablis was just the Semillon and Sauvignon Blance blended together, Hunter Riesling was of course Semillon, Claret was Shiraz blended with Cabernet and Fruity Lexia was actually considered wine... How obscure is that! |
|
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Write comment







