Hillary is blaming James Comey. Others say blacks just didnât turn out in the numbers expected. And, then there are those who are positively shocked by the percentage of Latinos who voted for Trump.
Alas, the above-mentions politicians, pundits and just plain, old folk like you and me missed the REAL culprit behind Clintonâs loss last week. It was Big Data and it little brother, Analytics.
As many of you know, Big Data and Analytics have become Hollywood A-Level superstars in the marketing communications/public affairs/lobbying and polling worlds. In fact, one might liken them to Brad and Angelina prior to that oh-so-messy break-up.
After all, itâs a given that EVERY great campaign MUST begin with a deep, quantitative dive into the target audience to determine exactly who they are, what they think, where theyâre concentrated, when is the best time in which to engage them and, of course, how to create that oh-so-critical connection with them.
Then, Big Data passes the baton to Analytics, which proceeds to spew out all sorts of scientifically-based, nearly indecipherable charts and graphs that enable the strategic and creative types (thatâs me, BTW) to create a campaign.
Ah, but Big Data and Analytics sustained one whale of a wake-up call on Election Day.
The âexpertsâ who crunched all the data, created all the profiles and made all the predictions (some of which called for a Clinton landslide) were dead wrong.
Why? Itâs actually intuitive but, in the mad rush towards digitizing everything in marketing, the Stronger Together team forgot to listen.
They also forgot to put themselves in the shoes of every conceivable voting bloc, and not just assume the very same majority that twice put Obama over the top would do the same for Hilz.
In short, they didnât add a qualitative overlay to their Big Data findings.
Qualitative surveying enables one to ask the one question that always trips up Big Data: Why?
So, as Clintonâs ground game went knocking from door-to-door, urging Swing State voters to back Hilz, they just shrugged their shoulders and moved on as said door was slammed in their face by an uneducated and, most likely, unemployed rural worker who proudly proclaimed she or he would be voting for The Donald instead. Hilz people never bothered to ask why.
We INSIST on adding qualitative interviewing as well as what we call Audience Experience to any significant client project.
Thatâs because yours truly in particular has never been a big fan of relying solely on Big Data.
I like to ask the why question to target audiences. Why do, or donât, you like my clientâs product, service or organization? Really? Tell me more? And, why is that? And, so on and so forth (Note: Please do NOT confuse the above with focus groups, which are badly flawed since the alpha personality in the room ALWAYS dominates the conversation while the Beta types nod their heads in agreement).
We also assign teams who actually experience the clientâs product, service or organizational experience first-hand from the outside-in.
We invariably find gaps between a clientâs brand promise and what the target prospect actually experiences (Note: most gaps are subtle, but significant; others are wider than the Grand Canyon).
Iâd like to believe the 2016 election will cause my peers to take pause and think twice about relying solely on Big Data and Analytics.
As weâve seen, Big Data has an Achilles Heel: it doesnât humanize the fact-gathering. Nor does it allow one to rely on oneâs gut instincts, rather than highly complex charts and graphs.
For all his faults, Trump ignored Big Data and Analytics, went with his gut instincts and, like it or not, came out on top as our new president.
Iâm not suggesting we stop investing in Big Data or Analytics, but I am strongly advising marketers to slow down and spend time listening to the human beings youâre trying to influence. You may be surprised at their answers to the question why. And, that answer just might prevent you from making the very same mistake as Team Clinton.
Oh, and BTW, Iâm Steve Cody and I approved this blog.
Â
Â
So so true, Steve. Iâm glad you mentioned analytics when you talked about big data. Data is only a buzzword, without any sense, when no one is able to find INSIGHT out of it. We should leverage data to understand human, not to replace human.
Appreciate the comments and anecdotal insights. That said, Joe, youâre being replaced by an artificial Intelligence-driven writer/editor. Weâll try to work out a humane severence package. Pun intended.
This is so true, Steve, Data and analytics are great but they will never fully replaced humans. They should enable us to get smarter about things, not become things we rely on.
Iâm not really sure how to parse this. I still donât have enough info on how the data was collected by pollsters. But something tells me they got lazy. Either that or the cost of election data has been driven so low that pollsters cut corners and missed the big picture.
Anecdotally, I drove across Penn. four times this year. On each trip, I saw more and more Trump signs. Yard signs, banners, billboards, etc. Iâve been interested in politics ever since Nixon resigned; I was 5 and still remember it. And Iâve never seen so much tacit support for a candidate until Trump.
So did the pollsters go to Lackawanna County and knock on doors? I donât know.
One group that did make the right call? Bookies. On the eve of the election, London bookies had Trump favored. They reported that many, many, many small bets from small punters came in for Trump.
I do hope this reminds mar-comm folks to check the methodology of any data that they use. Was it collected right?