Who can you trust?
Various studies are often referred to when someone wants to argue their case. But there is of course a difference between different types of studies and the weight they can add to an argument. First of all, a distinction must be made between studies that show a causal relationship and studies that show co-variation.
The claim that ice cream causes drowning can be backed up by the fact that when we eat more ice cream there are more drowning incidents. But of course ice cream is not the cause. This is just an example of covariation. It's sort of seasonal - when we go swimming, it's warm, and ice cream is good. Other correlation studies can be more difficult to see through. If a study can prove a causal relationship, then there is causality. There is a cause and there is an effect. Big difference.
Evidence-based research
As the title suggests, it is about evidence-based research. However, not all research is evidence-based, nor should it always be. Qualitative studies also have their place, of course. But it is important to know what is what. When you read "studies show that ..." you should reflexively wonder whether it was a randomized controlled trial, an observational study, a case study or whatever. The difference is huge. Different studies have different evidential value and in a healthy society, source criticism has an important place. Who should you trust?
Disinformation
AI and deepfake are here to stay. Never in the history of the world has it been as easy as it is now to produce large amounts of false information. AI is available to everyone and not everyone is clean. The first negative effect of this is that people stop looking for information because they know it could be false anyway. The second negative effect is that people believe the nonsense. There are more foil hats. This affects attitudes and how people act, certainly in the market. The commercial implications are huge. The discussion around vaccines, energy and food are three good examples. Many people have dug themselves into trenches that get deeper and deeper as screen time increases.
What is the problem?
Well, here's the thing. We live in a world where the flow of information has never been greater and it has never been more difficult to absorb, understand and evaluate information. This leads to two things: information fatigue and the fact that we close ourselves in bubbles and end up only being open to information that supports what we already think we know. The algorithms behind social media platforms support and drive the latter.
It is easy to be concerned about information fatigue, the lack of source criticism and the tendency for people to get stuck in information bubbles and the resulting polarization of society. Our job as an advertising agency is to make people feel, think and act in a certain way. We do this for a fee. It is not our business to be objective or to have a political agenda (unless we are paid for it.) We are bought, we have a clear role to play and there is total transparency. Then it is another thing that we as individuals can be critical of political conditions or how things work or don't work in society. But that has nothing to do with our task or our profession.
- Market research is becoming more important.
- Target group analysis is becoming more important.
- Personalization is becoming more important.
- High quality and varied content is a must.
- Messages and arguments must be adapted to the information bubbles in which the target audience lives.
- It is analysis and ongoing optimization that creates successful campaigns.
