Everyone has an opinion but some are more important than others: researched vs. social
Information is often weighed on the strength and volume of opinions shared on social media but with less than 20% of Australians having a Twitter account, Pete Wilson asks: do we have the weight all wrong?
Opinions are a hot commodity these days. In the multi-platform, social media world facts are often disputed (or ignored) but opinions are always welcome. From everyone.
But too often social media chatter is hailed as a true reflection of what people really think.
How many ‘news’ stories begin with ‘people took to Twitter to voice their anger/sadness/outrage (especially outrage) over incident X’, as a summary of public opinion?
Professional and amateur ‘opinionistas’ launch feisty debates with each other on Twitter where the nature of the forum itself becomes a catalyst for even more opinion.
Consider those twitterati – many of whom are gainfully employed either in the media or elsewhere – who spend most days railing against Twitter. It’s social media eating itself.
But for all this prickliness, febrility and misguided ranting, it is fair to conclude that social media forums are an important part of free speech, democracy and that hoary old chestnut, ‘the marketplace of ideas’. That is, once you block out the numbing white noise of cat videos, ‘hilarious’ memes and celebrity gossip (is that a baby bump on Taylor Swift?).
Opinions are everywhere and we all seem to want to express them, all the time. And even though we know that only around 19% of Australians have a Twitter account (or perhaps less), with less than half of these logging on each day, the trending Twitterverse is often reported as reflecting the national mood.
This is something Twitter itself likes to trumpet, but as Mumbrella recently reported, its audience reach still has some way to go.
Professional opinion polling tries to take a more representative measure of attitudes and preferences by calibrating the opinions of the noisy minorities against the mainstream. For all the benefits gained through taking the pulse of the national mood, it is still a vexed discipline. (Disclosure: I make at least some of my living from opinion polling, so I should be careful here).
As with our opinionistas rampant on social media, opinion polling, by definition, often assumes we all have an opinion on something, whether the issue is same-sex marriage, the latest Paris agreement on cutting carbon emissions or whether democracy is preferable to any other form of government.
The answer, by the way, according to a recent Lowy Institute poll, is 65%. So it seems around one third of us wouldn’t mind trying out a bit of anarchy or theocracy or perhaps good old-fashioned totalitarianism.
What if you don’t know what you think about a particular topic or issue? You just honestly don’t know what can be done about climate change, or you’re not sure if what some overpaid cricketer said to a female journalist was inappropriate, or if we should let in more or fewer refugees.
Yes, you may have read about these things, thought about them, talked about them. Maybe even followed the debate on mainstream and social media. But you still don’t know.
In the world of social media you are a minority. In real life you are probably not.
One of my favourite poll questions that assumes people have the awareness, knowledge and therefore an informed opinion, goes along the line of:
Thinking now about electricity sources. Please indicate whether you would be supportive or unsupportive of having biomass as a source of electricity for your home?
(I’ll give you a moment while you Google ‘biomass’.)
Sometimes survey questions will give you a ‘don’t know’ option for these questions, and sometimes you have to offer it yourself. Sometimes you are not given a choice because ‘We really value your opinion!’
When someone asks you a question, there is an expectation that you give an answer. In our opinion-obsessed world ‘don’t know’ doesn’t always cut it.
Even worse is ‘I don’t care’. Again, not a common option provided in the world of opinion polling and not something easily gauged in the cut and thrust of social media debate, but a fundamental state of being for many Australians around many issues nonetheless.
Accurately measuring the community’s ‘don’t know’ or ‘don’t care’ levels on particular issues can actually be very instructive. It can put into perspective the bluster that comes from those on the more extreme sides of the debate. Good opinion polls will include questions along these lines to provide context, but the results are rarely reported because they are not seen as headline or clickbait worthy.
Awareness (‘so what is this biomass thing again, exactly?’), interest (‘not another global talkfest about carbon emissions…yawn.’) and experience (‘umm, I don’t think I’ve actually lived anywhere other than a democracy, have I?’) guide our opinions along with a variety of other intersecting factors such as the values we hold, our upbringing, the company we keep and the information we absorb.
Simplistic analysis of opinion, whether through polling or the hurly-burly of social media debate, too often distorts what we think (or don’t think) about important issues.
With the election year gearing up this becomes even more important. Politicians and pollsters will be keen to know what you think. But only the smart ones will understand that measuring public opinion is not always so simple.
But that’s just my opinion. What do you think?
Pete Wilson is managing director of Kreab Research. He has more than 20 years’ experience in the social and market research sector and really values your opinion (even if you don’t know what it is, or don’t really care).
excellent stuff. decision making based the small % of people who use particular social media platforms and are active on it, and who are consciously making comments ( not just hitting a button to retweet, share or pass on headlines without thinking them through, reading body copy or attachments, considering the source of the original etc etc ) is no real reflection of reality.
User ID not verified.
Thanks Dave!
User ID not verified.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/.....04/old.jpg
People vent their opinions on lots of other social sources as well. I not you left out Facebook.
case in point look at the hammering golden boy Mike Baird is getting for his obscene lock out laws comment
User ID not verified.
Very nice piece, and nice reminder not to assume a relative active minority reflect the mainstream.
So many companies these days focus on social media monitoring as the ultimate way of tracking a brand, but it’s so much more.
And you’re totally right about the “Don’t know/don’t care” issue.
As a quantitative market researcher myself, I often get pushback from clients who want to force a response and remove the middle ground. To a researcher trying to protect the data integrity and actually reflect what the consumer thinks (“I honestly don’t know” “I honestly don’t care” “I honestly couldn’t tell you if I’d buy your product or not, you haven’t convinced me yet”), it’s a difficult challenge when clients say “No, someone MUST have an opinion!”.
User ID not verified.
Interesting article…The current PM should be well aware of how the ‘don’t knows’ can fatally affect national debate. Looking at the old referendum on the Republic, in which he was in charge of the pro campaign, it was lost even though a majority appeared to want some sort of a republic. They did not want his version. They probably didn’t know they were putting the whole thing off into the never never by voting no. The monarchists still snuffling up their sleeves at how cleverly theymanipulated this into a no vote. Those with long memories can recall past surveys showing a majority of Aussies didn’t know whether Australia had a Constitution. This at a time they were being asked to vote to change it.
User ID not verified.
Agree with the above, nice piece. The added problem with social is when a comment stream gets hijacked by special interest groups, further skewing the commentary. As the author has pointed out, that ‘don’t know/don’t care’ component could be the iceberg beneath the waterline – Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns.
It has to also be said, however, that quant/qual polling has its shortcomings. I haven’t found a full explanation yet, but the rise and sustenance of Trump seems to have caught all the professional pundits by surprise. Given the amount of dollars and re-benchmarking in polling methodologies that every US election seems to bring, were the pollsters measuring against legacy understandings of the electorate and missing this emerging (and quite significant) exasperation at the political class? Another (hitherto) unknown unknown?
User ID not verified.
Yes Georgia, the republican debate and referendum was a classic example of assumed knowledge and not providing the full range of options. Thanks for your comment
User ID not verified.
It’s a good point Andrew. I focussed on twitter given it seems to get the attention of pollies and media but you’re right, Facebook is increasingly heading that way too. I think Baird uses it well, even if his latest is getting a hammering, it puts him front and centre of the debate
User ID not verified.
As a film critic, I fully (and a bit self servingly) endorse the view that ‘everyone has an opinion but some are more valuable / informed than others’. Transposing this to social media, I would say the anonymity provides a responsibility-free opinion-magnet that devalues those opinions.
User ID not verified.
I would have thought that projecting the ‘thoughts’ of the chatterati on most social media platforms as a true reflection of mainstream opinion, or any of a million “measureable brand ‘values’ ” is enough to make most professional researchers faint.
Alan Robertson
Kinesis Media
User ID not verified.
Lazy journalism 101: if you want to master Journalism 2.0 just comb twitter for opinions
User ID not verified.
Love this article – think Pete Wilson has nailed it – there is also a trend to reporting opinion polls without the number of respondents, how/when poll was conducted etc – so it ends up in a screaming headline quoting a stat based on a sample size of 87 randoms wandering past in a shopping centre … without the ‘don’t know’ or ‘don’t care’ option.
User ID not verified.
Isn’t distortion, or more euphemistically, influence of what we think or don’t think exactly the point of so many of our jobs? The Twitterati are at least more reflective of ‘the wisdom of the crowds’ than the inner circle of government managers who decide that day’s ‘talking points’ or the small group of people who make corporate editorial decisions at Fairfax, News Corp and our major broadcasters.
Here’s what Hancock Prospecting said when they bought a big stake in Channel 10 a few years back: “Our company group is interested in making an investment towards the media business given its importance to the nation’s future and has selected Channel 10 for this investment.”
Tweets aren’t science, they’re just another voice in media’s overwhelmingly corporate cacophony.
User ID not verified.
I have no particular opinion on this matter, but I want to be heard anyway.
User ID not verified.
Always good to see some common sense discussion in the frothy world of Twitter adoration.
User ID not verified.
I think this is a great piece with some important points, that I really hope are not lightbulb moments for serious professional researchers. Having said that, there are a few sub-points I’d like to add:
1) The media is also guilty of being even lazier by focusing on the opinion of one (1) person – an expert. A facetious person might see this opinion piece as an example. Sure, their expertise might make their opinion ‘better’, but how much weight should be given to expertise over representativeness? Also, an expert is more likely to have bias or an agenda than a layman. Should differing opinions be also given in the name of balance? These are complicated questions.
2) Sometimes it does make sense to pay attention the noisy minority (i.e. social media streams), precisely because they are noisy, and while they may be the minority of the population they may also be the majority of the population who actually know/care
3) Should we really discount the opinions of people who don’t know or care? Isn’t that a viable option in many cases? Our compulsory voting system would suggest that a disengaged vote is worth as much as an engaged one
4) We must always remember what the average person is capable of telling us. They may be able to tell us what they consciously think and what they did recently, but they are pretty terrible at telling us what they unconsciously think, what they did a while ago or do habitually, absolutely awful at telling us why they think or do anything, and completely hopeless at telling us what other people think and do, and why. And yet these are the questions they are often asked. “Why do you think Donald Trump is so popular with voters?”
User ID not verified.
Ow! Robbo, how could you tell I had fainted.
Someone mentioned sample size, but to me the big issue is the context and wording of the questions asked. Someone also sagely mentioned the how the Republic debate was lost with exactly this technique.
I once had an assignment at Uni that had to be completed before the end of the lecture. Design a questionnaire that proved that all Australian men are wife-bashers. Pfft we all thought – you can’t as it’s not factual. Good old Eddie Oliver put up a single slide:
Q, Do you still bash you wife – Yes/No.
One word – ‘still’ – changed the question and the outcome.
It was a lesson never forgotten – hence insistence on “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” on every questionnaire I have ever worked on.
Someone also raised the issue of the twitterati being allowed to have and to voice their opinion. Of course they do! But then so do the silent majority – which believe me truly exist (and are BLOODY hard to research). The skill is in what weight or value you attach to social media comment streams.
Cheers.
User ID not verified.
@ Chiming In
Top level I took away: Do not rely on social for patterns, use researchers. The piece is written by a researcher.
There is an old saying that ‘rings’ true: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Another is: (Enter percentage of your choice here) of stats are made up.
‘Surveys’ from research companies can also be skewed to suit the clients agenda.
Nice piece all the same!
User ID not verified.
Nicely written although in the big theme of things social is an excellent source, given the bias and vested interest in just about all other “research”. So if you want to pump out your dodgy “message” or be told what you want to hear then you continue to use all the usual “research” groups, focus groups, meaningless surveys etc. For most of that better to use social *provided* there is actually enough relevant activity *AND* you actually want to know the reality. Sure, it is an imperfect design, but so are all the others.
For the 20% of serious credible research then you need people with integrity and expertise who know how to design the “experiment” and how to interpret it properly. These people tend to know the difference between correlation and causation 🙂
User ID not verified.
Thanks all for your generous and insightful comments. Just to pick up on a few of them.
Al, the irony was not lost on me in writing an opinion piece about opinions. And while I may not be an expert I take yours and others point that especially in the commercial world it can be difficult to appear objective and unbiased when dealing with client’s issues. The constant struggle of telling clients what they want to hear versus what they should know. As Bell Ringer and Walter point out traditional research techniques such as surveys and focus groups are by no means pure and are as only as good the people who design them and analyse the data.
And just to clarify, I’m not against using social media analysis as part of opinion measurement (we do it all the time). I think finding the balance and overall context between social media and broader opinion polling is the real challenge. And not always an easy one as many of you have mentioned.
And I would never suggest discounting the opinions of people who don’t know or don’t care. That’s the whole point. They need to be taken into account and understood especially if you do want people to become more engaged with a topic (although the community’s blissful ignorance is often a desired outcome for some clients – “don’t wake the snake!”)
User ID not verified.
Basing any news story on what “Twitter thinks” is about as useless as those dumb “man in the street” vox pops so beloved of lazy TV journalists.
We know the problem. Question is what, if anything, can we do about it?
User ID not verified.