The latest issue of Foreign Affairs features the cover article “The Rise of Big Data” by Kenneth Cukier and Viktor Mayer-Schoenburger, which mostly details some of the incredible ways companies like UPS, Google and Apple have come to rely on vast arrays of numbers in order to run their businesses better. But data has always provided a problem in that it gives a substantive assurance of certainty that has a propensity to foster overconfidence in those relying on it. The article attempts to address this:
“[K]nowing the causes behind things is desirable. The problem is that causes are often extremely hard to figure out… Behavioural economics has shown that humans are conditioned to see causes even where none exist. So we need to be particularly on guard to prevent our cognitive biases from deluding us; sometimes, we just have to let the data speak.”
The sentiment here is admirable, and the context perceptive. But the final part of the quotation (my emphasis) assumes wrongly that data can speak objectively, that there is a fundamental ‘truth’ in a number. All too often though the wrong things are measured, or not all variables are measured. What data does not record, or worse, cannot record, can often be overlooked. While ostensibly data is there to provide assistance with building models and predicting future trends and movements, it sometimes leads to a very narrow view of one particular future, and fails to account for possibilities, that, though while unlikely, could potentially be devastating. This is what Nicholas Taleb writes about in his by turns unreadable but seminal work, Black Swan. The fictional, paranoid loner Fox Mulder of the hit series The X-Files had it right fifteen years ago when he lamented “in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorised or easily referenced”. The financial system before 2008 was a victim of such narrow thinking.
Hendrik Hertzberg, in his Talk of the Town column “Preventive Measures” in this week’s The New Yorker, made the adroit analogy with the 2002 film Minority Report in our quest to categorise and predict acts of crime. Hertzberg points out that in reality this “turns out to be a good deal more difficult than investigating such an act once it occurs”. Indeed, such prediction methods are being implemented, just with somewhat less efficacy than in the Tom Cruise movie. The stop-and-frisk procedure currently employed by the New York Police Department points to a sustained effort to engage in preventative measures to reduce crime, effectively what Cruise and his myrmidons were doing, albeit without the help of psychic imagery as in the film. While the psychic “Pre-Cogs” turned out to occasionally disagree, the success rate with stop-and-frisk is even less attractive. “In the final months of 2012″, writes the New York Times, only 4% of stops resulted in an arrest.
Hertzberg also alludes to the dilemma of mountains of data, produced without concern for oversight or management; producing more just because it’s possible to produce it:
“This fall, the National Security Agency, the largest and most opaque component of the counter-terrorism behemoth, will [open] a billion-dollar facility [analysing] intercepted telecommunications… each of the Utah Data Center’s two hundred (at most) professionals will be responsible for reviewing five hundred billion terabytes of information each year, the equivalent of twenty-three million years’ worth of Blu-ray DVDs… that’s a lot of overtime.”
The other problem this data poses – and increasingly this goes for many industries that are jumping on the Big Data bandwagon – is that intelligence departments and businesses alike are able to put quantifiable targets and figures to what they want to achieve, whether they are actually applicable or not. Police claim the low stop-to-arrest ratio implies that they are preventing crimes by stopping someone before they act. There is nothing to argue otherwise. The New York Times article alludes to the debate over what ratio or percentage the Supreme Court would be comfortable with under the tenet of “reasonable suspicion”. This leads down a dangerous path where we treat data as an answer to a question, rather than as supporting evidence to an answer.
Product Placement Rules and Rulings…
We’ve commented previously on product placement – both its holistic impact on television as well as its presence in the recent Tron: Legacy film released at the end of last year. The increasing presence of this tool reflects a synergy between increasingly curated advertorial and a heightened sophistication among audiences to know well enough – but hopefully not too well – when they are being sold to.
The new James Bond film due out next year was recently announced to have accrued $45m from product placement, shattering the previous record held by Minority Report. Recent advertising rulings in the UK make it mandatory for an icon to appear in the bridge between adverts and the show, informing a viewer when a segment will feature a placement so they know to be wary. Does this not defeat the object though? Meanwhile, Ofcom last month published survey results showing that few seem to be swayed by product placement. As testimonials like the above image show (albeit tongue-in-cheek from one of our favourite Twitter followers), there is certainly something to be said for the influence of a plain ol’ sponsorship or simple advertisement. For the last word though, it would probably be useful to catch documentary maker Morgan Spurlock’s new film, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold.
What last month’s Consumer Electronic Show did for in-store packaging and design.
Back in 2002, Steven Spielberg’s somewhat dystopian Minority Report, set in 2054, featured many a futuristic thing that has influenced the way companies think about product interface. The film also had a brief scene where our hero returns home at the end of the day to munch on some cereal. The marketing technique employed on the cereal box he uses (and is totally jaded by), was this month revealed in its embryonic stages, courtesy of Trix and Honey Nut Cheerios. Shopper Culture reports the technology is courtesy of Fulton Innovation, using their patented eCoupled [wireless] technology. According to their website, they are playing “a vital role in developing the international standard for wireless charging—Qi (pronounced “chee”)—through our participation as a founding member of the Wireless Power Consortium, an international collaboration of companies.”
It’s quite a fascinating leap in the way we can market packaged goods. While certainly eye-catching, and hence good for impulse buys, it’s questionable as to what effect this kind of technology will have on shoppers at such a simple stage of its evolution. This is merely the beginning though. Look for packaging to become much more malleable and digitally on-brand. Just don’t ask about how environmentally sustainable it is.