Thursday, December 18, 2008
I do hate lazy conclusions
Especially when they seem drawn simply to discredit social media and its commercial viability. Today's annoyance:
A Marketing Vox article: Older Women More Purposeful Online than Younger Peers
Actually I think the data is pretty good, and maps quite closely to the insights we were able to draw from our own March 2008 Benchmark Study of Women and Blogging [PDF], conducted with Compass Partners. One such example being that younger generations are more interested in each other's lives, older generations more interested in actionable information.
Here's what made me cranky:
My firsy question: Are those two stats additive, and could people choose only one? Meaning: Does that mean 46% were annoyed or ignored the ad? (Which, by the way, indicates that over half over respondents had no such negative reaction>)
If they're not from the same choose-only-one question of the survey, then I'm not sure how 26% ignoring an ad = "largely ineffective". That means that three quarters of the respondents do notice ads. Do we think TV viewers, newspaper readers or magazine readers are drastically different?
"Largely ineffective" is a completely subjective (and I might venture unsupported) conclusion.
Know what I mean?
A Marketing Vox article: Older Women More Purposeful Online than Younger Peers
Actually I think the data is pretty good, and maps quite closely to the insights we were able to draw from our own March 2008 Benchmark Study of Women and Blogging [PDF], conducted with Compass Partners. One such example being that younger generations are more interested in each other's lives, older generations more interested in actionable information.
Here's what made me cranky:
Like findings in other studies, the SheSpeaks research also found that advertising on social networking sites is largely ineffective. Among those surveyed, one-quarter (26%) of respondents say they actively ignore such ads and 20% say they are annoyed by the presence of online ads on social networking sites.
My firsy question: Are those two stats additive, and could people choose only one? Meaning: Does that mean 46% were annoyed or ignored the ad? (Which, by the way, indicates that over half over respondents had no such negative reaction>)
If they're not from the same choose-only-one question of the survey, then I'm not sure how 26% ignoring an ad = "largely ineffective". That means that three quarters of the respondents do notice ads. Do we think TV viewers, newspaper readers or magazine readers are drastically different?
"Largely ineffective" is a completely subjective (and I might venture unsupported) conclusion.
Know what I mean?
Labels: blogher, marketingvox, shespeaks, surveys
// posted by ElisaC @ 2:19 PM 
