Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Malcolm Gladwell, Authenticity & The Trump Era

In our profession, those who can foretell market trends will
always embody a competitive edge.
In the last 15 years, we’ve built TMRE: The Market Research Event into the
Market Research & Insights industry’s number one opportunity to learn from
and network with the brightest, boldest thought leaders in our industry.
This October, we’re thrilled to present the most
well-curated TMRE ever – with tons of all-new, trend-worthy topics, speakers
and sessions that smash the mold!
Here’s what we’ll be
buzzing about at TMRE 2017:

Superstar author Malcolm Gladwell reveals how
embracing technology has helped him forge new connections with his audience -
and what those lessons can teach our evolving industry.
The new U.S. administration has created
unforeseen realities and risks for brands, with “authenticity”
emerging as a buzzword of the year. Peter Horst, former Chief Marketing
Officer, The Hershey Company. helps leaders navigate this changing environment
in Marketing in the Trump Age.
Introducing the Breakthrough Technology Start-Up
Showcase, a chance to meet the biggest and most disruptive industry start-ups,
while networking with the leaders who’ll shape our industry for years to come.
Brand-new for TMRE 2017, we’ve partnered with
Women in Research (WiRE) to present the Women in Research Awards, honoring
outstanding female industry leaders, movers and shakers. 
Request the TMRE 2017

And that’s not all!
All New! Future-proof yourself at TMRE 2017′s
Industry Specific Days
All New! Discover what today’s C-Suite really
wants to hear at the Chief Marketing Officer Forum
1,100+ international executives & thought
150+ speakers & 120+ content-driven
65% client-side attendance!
TMRE is the premier event for Market Research and Consumer
Insights thought leaders – an unparalleled opportunity to jump-start your
career, build an all-star network and invigorate your brand.
Use exclusive blog
discount code TMRE17BL for $100 off the current rate: 

The TMRE Team


The 2016 Presidential Election and the Media

By: Jim Bono, Vice
President, Research, Crown Media Family Networks

The year 2016 featured what many called the ‘most important
election of our time.’  However, this
nation continues to be split by political affiliation and party.  This was extremely apparent in social media
circles as supporters of Trump, Clinton and Sanders were extremely passionate
in their opinions of the debates, news coverage and finally the election
itself.  The mainstream media also had
major differences of opinion ‘ depending on if you were watching CNN or
FOXNews.  Yet, the American people were still
glued to their TV sets, watching the primaries, the debates and as much news
coverage as they could to follow this presidential race.
The cable news networks
definitely benefited from 2016 being an election year.  In 4th Qtr 2016, MSNBC, FOXNews
and CNN displayed significant year-to-year over the previous 4th
Qtr.  Among that key advertiser
demographic of Women 25-54, MSNBC showed the largest growth, up +93%, followed
by CNN (+81%) and FOXNews (+61%).  Among Total Viewers, FOXNews was the
most watched cable network in 4th Qtr 2016 with 1.7 million
viewers.  In fact, FOXNews, MSNBC and CNN
were the top 3 cable networks among pure total viewer growth for 4Q’16 vs.

However, by the time the election was over, it seemed the
American people had enough.  The bias,
melodrama, inaccuracies, and outrage that the television news journalists
showed on election night proved to be intense, and eventually took its toll on
the American viewers.
According to an article in The Washington Times, an analyst for
YouGov wrote:
‘As America deals with the
fallout of the election, 27 percent of the country is actively trying to avoid
the news.’
36% of Democrats were
‘making an effort to avert their gaze from newspapers and television news,’
while 21% of Republicans are also trying to avoid the news.
The American
people were cranky and needed something in the media to put them in a better
mood.  They starting looking for that
‘feel good’ environment on television. 
And there were two cable networks that offered it to them ‘ Hallmark
Channel and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries!
The two cable
networks, owned by Crown Media, had just launched their annual holiday
campaigns at the beginning of the month, just prior to the election.  Hallmark Channel’s Countdown to Christmas proved
to be a major success, premiering 19 new original holiday movies which
consistently ranked in the top of their time period, occasionally beating even
the broadcast networks.  
In fact,
Hallmark Channel had the #1 movie of the week for 10 straight weeks, and 11 of
those new premieres ranked as the #1 cable telecast of the day that they aired.  Furthermore, for all of 4th Qtr
2016, Hallmark Channel was HIGHEST
RATED cable network (behind FOXNews) among HH rtg, and the #1 watched cable network among W25-54!
Hallmark Movies
& Mysteries Most Wonderful Movies of Christmas campaign brought of 7 new original
holiday movies, which averaged a 1.6 HH rtg, and ranked #3 in their Sunday
night 9-11pm time period.  For a
mid-sized cable network in just over 67 million homes, HMM delivered big
numbers, outperforming many larger fully distributed cable networks like
Lifetime, A&E, TLC and Bravo!
As a safe place
for viewers to go and watch that ‘feel good’ programming, the family friendly
networks also experienced significant year-to-year growth, adding more new total viewers 4Q’16
vs. 4Q’15 than any other non-news cable network.
Daypart: Total Day
Viewing Source
P2+ (000)
P2+ (000)
Source: Nielsen Live+SD data, top 10 cable networks

So while 2016 was a banner year for the cable news
networks, and as social media thrived due to election coverage, viewers still
want something that will let them escape from the negativity that many media
outlets continue to push upon the American people day after day.

The polls got it wrong (again) but don’t lose faith in quantitative research

By: Jim
Like many, I woke unusually early on
Wednesday and reached nervously for my mobile phone. It was US election night
and I was eager to see if, from my perspective, crisis had been averted or the
world really had gone mad. Before I had a chance to tap my favourite news app I
noticed a message from my brother: ‘Another resounding victory for the
polls bruv!’ Detecting sarcasm (I’m smart like that) I knew this could
only mean one thing. Sure enough, Trump was well on course to a victory that
nobody, least of all the pollsters, was anticipating. For the third time in
eighteen months (following the UK general election and EU referendum) the
pollsters had got it wrong!
In the period since May 2015, I’ve had
countless debates with polling sceptics like my brother. His, fiercely
articulated, view is that polling is not simply inaccurate, it also has the
potential to sabotage itself. He’s not alone in this belief. Behavioural
economics shows that people generally wish to follow the herd. Therefore, a
poll showing that the majority think in a particular way is likely to
influence, albeit subtly, what they themselves believe. Furthermore, there are
those that cite the possibility that polls could impact rates of voter turnout.
After all, why bother to turn out to vote if the polls have created a strong
belief that your favoured candidate is either assured of victory or has no chance
of winning?
Polling, when first popularised by George
Gallup in the 1930s, was hailed for the positive contribution it made
to the democratic process. Gallup himself was, understandably, steadfast in
this belief. Elmo Roper, another pioneer of the public opinion poll, described
it rather hyperbolically as ‘the greatest contribution to democracy since
the introduction of the secret ballot’. 

But there have always been critics, and
the anti-polling arguments inevitably gain traction when the pollsters get it
wrong. Failure is not a modern phenomenon either. Immediately prior to the 1948
election George Gallup predicted that Dewey would beat Truman in the election
and stated, unwisely as it turns out, ‘We have never claimed
infallibility, but next Tuesday the whole world will be able to see down to the
last percentage point how good we are’. Dewey lost. The anti-polling lobby
had a field day.

So criticisms of polling aren’t new and,
let’s be honest, they would remain niche concerns if the polls were accurately
predicting results. But they’re not and on the back of a series of high profile
failures it’s increasingly common to deride polling as a ‘devalued
pseudo-science conducted by charlatans’. Yep, my brother again. I hate to give
him the last word so, in order to provide a flavour of wider opinion, I’ll
quote the Guardian’s post-election editorial instead. ‘The opinion polls
and the vaunted probability calculus rarely trended in his (Trump’s) direction;
both are discredited today.’
The purpose of this blogpost is not to
defend political polling; I have my own concerns in that direction and it’s
undeniable that the work of pollsters is becoming harder, due to a combination
of methodological issues and a more fluid, less predictable, political
landscape. However, for the sake of fairness I’d like to mention two things,
neither of which is intended to exonerate the practice.
First, most polls reflect public sentiment
within a nationally representative sample. In the main, but not exclusively,
the polls conducted immediately prior to the election found that, by a
relatively small margin, more Americans intended to vote for Clinton than
Trump. In this they were correct. At the time of writing, the figures show that
59,814,018 Americans voted for Clinton whilst 200,000 fewer (59,611,678) voted
for Trump. However, due to the distribution of votes and the vagaries of the US
political system, this translated into 279 Electoral College votes for Trump
and 228 for Clinton.
Second, most polls conducted by reputable
polling organisations produced results that placed the result well within the
margin of error. ‘What’s that’? I hear you ask. Well, tucked away at the
end of most reports based on a public opinion poll will be a small note about
margin of error. This margin will differ depending on the number of people
interviewed for the poll but, for a standard sample size of 1,000, the margin
of error is +/- 3.5%. This essentially means that if the poll results show that
Clinton is projected to win 47% of votes, the reality is likely to be somewhere
between 50.5% and 43.5%. Within this context, the result of the election was
well within the margin of error of most polls. It wasn’t so much the polls that
got it wrong, it was the reporting of the polls that failed to sufficiently
stress that the result really was too close to call. But people don’t like
uncertainty so these boring, statistical caveats tend to get overlooked.

OK, but I said this blog wasn’t designed to
defend polling. So what is it about? Well, I don’t feel the need to defend
polling because I’m not a pollster. However, I am a market researcher working
with quantitative surveys and, what concerns me, is the fear that growing
scepticism around polling will negatively impact trust in all forms of
numbers-based research into public attitudes. Maybe I’m just a worrier and
people are perfectly able to distinguish between different forms of survey
based research. However, my own experience suggests that isn’t always the case.
In May 2015 I was working at the Guardian.
The Guardian has invested significantly in data journalism over recent years
and coverage and analysis of polls was given a high degree of prominence in the
run up to the UK general election. At the Editorial conference, held the day
after the election, the mood was subdued. When the conversation turned to the
failure of the polls some journalists questioned the prominence given to
polling numbers, especially as those numbers didn’t chime with their instincts
and the evidence of their own, on the ground, experiences. The upshot was a
policy decision, only recently reversed, that editorial coverage of polling
should be suspended. The coverage of polls in the run-up to the US election was
reported under the banner ‘Sceptical polling’, which gives a pretty good
indication of the mood around the organisation.  
As Head of Consumer Insight at The
Guardian, a key element of my role was to advocate for use of consumer research
and promote evidence-based strategic decision-making. My internal clients were
ranged on a spectrum that ran from research enthusiasts to rejecters. This
latter group, a minority it should be said, believed there was little to gain
from engaging with research. The great polling disaster of 2015 provided a
tailor-made reason to disengage. After all, research had been shown, in the
most public way imaginable, to be unreliable and wrong! Hadn’t it?
I’m sure the Guardian is like most
organisations in having research stakeholders ranging from enthusiasts to
sceptics. To the latter group I would make this plea; don’t conflate political
polling and other forms of quantitative market research and do not deny
yourself and your business an incredibly powerful, consistently proven aid to
decision making simply because political polling has been shown to not be a
perfectly accurate crystal ball. As mentioned, polling isn’t quite as
inaccurate as some would have you believe. Furthermore, the stakes are simply
much higher for polling: A couple of percentage points either way (generally
within the margin of error, remember) is the difference between two
diametrically-opposed outcomes and the profound repercussions associated with
that. In contrast, if a representative survey of consumers in a particular
sector suggests that awareness of your brand currently stands at 34% whilst
that of a competitor is 64%, does it really make a huge difference to the
decisions your company will take if the reality is a couple of percentage
points either side?  
Of course, some decisions do require a
higher degree of accuracy. In these instances, market researchers have two huge
advantages over pollsters. We can increase the number of people interviewed in
the study, thus reducing the margin of error and increasing confidence levels.
We can also utilise robust sampling techniques such as random probability
sampling. Generally speaking, neither of these options is available to
pollsters because they are simply too time consuming. Pollsters are required to
provide an almost instantaneous reading of public sentiment, before new events
have a chance to change it, and anything that slows that process is, by
necessity, discarded. If pollsters were given the freedom to use these tools,
it’s likely they would provide far more accurate predictions. How do we know?
Well, following the 2015 general election most polling companies conducted
re-contact surveys with pre-election poll respondents to try and understand
what went wrong. What they discovered was that, even when conducting post-event
research, they were unable to accurately replicate the result. The inquiry
conducted by the Polling Council of Great Britain concluded that the reason was
their use of (attitudinally) unrepresentative samples drawn from panels and
that a random probability sampling approach (that gives every member of a target
population an equal chance of participating in the study) would counteract the
problem. Tellingly, the survey that best replicated the election result was the
British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey conducted by NatCen Social Research. Need
I say that BSA is based on a large sample (3,000) and utilises random
probability sampling?
I’ve rambled on too long and exceeded my
word count limit by a distance so I’ll finish by saying this: The great jazz
musician, Duke Ellington (or possibly Richard Strauss, it’s disputed) is quoted
as saying ‘there are only two types of music: good and bad’. Market
research is much the same. When done properly it is an incredibly powerful
diagnostic and forecasting tool that can provide a highly accurate picture of
consumer sentiment as it currently exists. Pollsters, through no fault of their
own, are sometimes unable to do it.
Researchers, however, can and do. 
Jim Mann is a senior quantitative director
at the numbers lab @ Firefish