Twitter got its ad business off the ground by selling marketers on the premise that its service complements TV, and now Tumblr is treading a similar path.
Ignore the ad-related analysis and look at the main graph - this is really interesting in terms of how ‘cultural half-life’ differs enormously by platform. If you spend most of your social media time on Twitter, you will simply have a FAR different idea about how bits of culture - TV in this case, but it applies more widely - live and die online than if you spend it on Tumblr. Which relates to stuff I was just angrily ranting about elsewhere on my rabbit-hole network of blogs…
“In general, this research has interesting implications for the charity sector - it suggests that in this case at least, a promotion-focused regulatory fit encourages greater interaction. Further research might focus on three areas. First, whether this applies generally in the environmental sector (as Todermann’s research implied). Second, as Facebook naturally has a promotional frame, whether this applies beyond that immediate context. And third, whether this promotion focus has an effect on donations, as well as interaction, which was outside the scope of our study but seems a promising hypothesis.”—
Oh, this is up? Cool! This was for a conference paper (for a conference which then wasn’t doing papers so I feared it would end up in limbo) so I get to talk all fancy like about “the scope of our study”.
Will and Alain did the heavy practical and theoretical lifting here, yours truly just hammered away at the keys until a paper came out. But it’s quite an interesting study about regulatory fit and charity work.
Look at T4 [on Channel 4] – it went away, now there is very little youth programming going on. BBC3 was something that … of course there was the odd questionable title, as there is with any channel, but it was really specifically targeted at making documentaries for young people.
It was educating them, nurturing them, saying you are important, we are gifting you with knowledge that will arm you in later life. We are not doing that, we are expecting them to find it for themselves and everything is online now. Everyone is becoming very separated in the next generation, chatting on Facebook and Twitter. They are becoming isolated.
That’s Jameela Jamil, talking about the closing of BBC3 in the UK. I’ve no real experience of the channel, and so no real opinion about whether or not it’s a loss, but the idea of a generation being “abandoned” to the Internet is something that sticks in my head — I’m not sure whether or not I agree with the premise, or even if the idea that the Internet is less suited to educate people on life than television, but it sticks inside nonetheless, poking and prodding towards a question I haven’t managed to form yet. (via graemem)
This is the flipside of defining a generation as “digital natives” who are “constantly connected”. It gives you an excuse to ditch them in traditional media.
(While pampering 30-something and 40-something nostalgists: it’s no accident that when the BBC talked about closing down 6Music a couple of years ago, the cry “GET RID OF BBC3 INSTEAD” went up. Mostly, of course, on social media, where people my age are WAY more ‘influential’ than the teens and 20somethings we commentate on. Not saying they should have closed down 6 Music either, the people need their Supergrass B-Sides and all that. It was just telling.)
For once I get to break with tradition and link my latest entry in my #1 reviews blog from Blackbeard rather than my usual Tumblr - because the front half of this piece is a potted history of branding in the 90s and 00s and the problems with it.
At this point, you’ve probably already heard that the new FIveThirtyEight has some problems. It seems a little unsporting to pile on, but if Nate Silver is gonna be a dick, I’d like to make a nomination for FiveThirtyEight’s worst piece yet.
The piece, a blog post by Mona Chalabi, is…
So, when I saw Mona Chalabai was writing for the site I have to admit I a little sceptical given her work at the Guardian. I guess that wasn’t entirely unfounded.
Interesting that the problem isn’t just misunderstanding of rap music, it’s also basic sloppiness. This is the issue with FiveThirtyEight’s collision of data analysis and the rapid-content multiple-update model: good analysis takes time, particularly if (as here) you have to define your variables and outputs from the off. If you don’t have time - and running a fast-content site means you don’t - the output suffers.
This is not news - in particular, anyone who’s worked in the subjective-analysis biz - criticism, op-eds, and the political analysis that Nate Silver so despises - knows the corners that get cut when speed to publish is the main or only thing that matters, rather than just one important factor. Thinking takes time, and analysis (both pre AND post data collection) is thinking. The hubris is to imagine that because data analysis is a numbers game that this somehow doesn’t apply - that the “objectivity” (ha) of quant analysis speeds things up.
Maybe it does - IF you know your data sets very well and the analysis is basically similar. If you’re working on a tracker, in other words. And polling and baseball data - what Silver made his reputation on - are pretty much the ultimate trackers. So the problem of FiveThirtyEight is the problem of what happens when tracker analysts start trying to deal with ad hoc data sets - like this rap one they’ve made up - and don’t take into account something as astonishingly basic as songs having more than one MC or instrumental breaks(!).
It’s conference write-up time. It’s 1700 words about the Market Research Society event this week..
I appreciate this is quite a few words, so the “6 lessons” are, very roughly.
1. Do more split testing, and if you can’t, at least think like a split tester sometimes.
2. But also, price big risky ideas into yr innovation “funnel” or whatever you’re calling it. (This one was a bit vague, I just liked Tim Harford’s way of framing it so I gave it its own point).
3. Storytelling is a false friend to consumer and researcher alike, and even for marketers it’s a lot more dangerous than it looks.
4. Don’t be bounced into crap decisions just because you want approval from people who aren’t going to like you anyway. (And don’t stick to your guns just because you hate the people disliking you - basically, if somebody’s angry with your company, do not trust your own reaction: get other opinions).
5. If you want to reach “hard to research” people, recruit some as fellow researchers not just as participants (this is NOT a new approach at all, but there was a good case study).
6. And to be honest, make improved diversity in the business a priority anyway, because it’ll make the whole industry better.
I have a ton of other notes, too - though not at all evenly distributed from the various sessions.
“more than 60% of consumers said they were less likely to trust a product review if they know it was paid for by the company selling the product”—Naturally this is presented as a ‘significant hurdle’ for marketers to ‘overcome’.
Not actually seen all of it it. I pressed play on it, but, you know, heart of stone. Anyway it’s a bit of content marketing about snogging that’s been viewed 24 million times before word that it’s an ad got out. Cue disappointment.
Did FK pretend not to be an ad or not? The version on the brand’s website is an ad (a long, slow, content-y, post-Dove Real Beauty kind of ad, but an ad nonetheless) - it’s only been seen 48k times though. It has the brand (Wren) on the title screen.
The one that’s been seen 24m times doesn’t have the brand name in the video, but if you see it on YouTube it does have a link to the brand site. So it’s buried the brand link deep but not at all denied it.
Which goes to show how few people click on the links in YouTube, or check back to YouTube in the first place.
In my experience, which is not absolute, anything which gets that many views on YouTube that quickly is either Zapruder-footage level newsworthy footage or has money behind it somewhere. This isn’t an absolute rule but it’s true often enough for it to be anyone’s sensible first assumption when encountering some “viral content”.
i.e. if it looks like an ad and quacks like an ad, it’s an ad.
Ah, but does it quack like an ad? I think this is the root of some of the feelings of disappointment and betrayal - not just that there was ‘deception’ involved but that a lot of people found that their aesthetics weren’t as separate from the aesthetics of modern content marketing as they might have hoped.
There’s only so many ways to skin the feelgood shortform video cat, basically.
"You Loved It Because You Were Told To Love It" (Flavorwire’s heading) is offbase, "You Loved It Because Marketers’ Job Is To Know What You Love And Some Of Them Are Occasionally Good At That" is more accurate.
Though it’s always grotty to find out something’s an ad. I’m not denying that, and I’ve been fooled myself often enough.
Luckily for the free will of humankind there is still a lot more crap content marketing than good. But yes this will spawn a lot of imitators, this is a big moment for this kind of stealth content marketing. For you, gentle viewer, the battle is over. For me, the case studies and First Company articles are just beginning.
Whether it was a good/successful ad is more open to question though - Wren may well have conceded too much in seeding the unbranded version and only becoming associated with the video in the backlash phase. But would Buzzfeed etc have carried it otherwise, and would people have viewed? Probably not. But these caveats matter less for a little brand than they would for one of the bigger ones.
The “What does Facebook think of me?” game - judging the kind of person I apparently am by the kind of sidebar ads I get - has taken an interesting turn.
Until very recently, Facebook’s opinion of me was that I was a total scrub. Despite being listed as married, all the ads were about casinos, lonely housewives, hair loss treatments, brides-of-the-world, easy credit… all sleaze most of the time, basically.
This has suddenly and dramatically changed. The current line-up of ads includes:
Widowed photographer learns passion for life after 40
Dude, it’s time to build a conservatory
Schools Fining Parents: Classic Or Dud?
and - yes! - MOTORBIKES WE KNOW YOU WANT ONE
With this last in particular I feel I have really arrived in 40somethingland.
But what on earth did I do to achieve this metaphorphosis from lecherous slob to Facebook Dad?
The answer seems to lie in FB’s lens on my marriage. I was listed as married to my real actual wife, Isabel. Which seems fair enough on the surface of it. But Isabel signed up for Facebook 5 years ago and never visited it again, with the result that she had 1 other friend and a blank profile.In other words, I reckon Facebook had noticed that I was “married” to a blatantly non-existent (in FB terms) person and decided in its all-powerful algorithmic brain that “married to fake woman” meant I got its special “shady scumbag” tranche of ads.
BUT! Isabel has now signed up again on a different email, so last week I callously abandoned her fake profile and am listed simply as “married”. Until she ticks the notification box to confirm I’m married *to her*, I am in a benefit of the doubt limbo where I get the most generic 40something dude advertising ever.
(Or of course, Facebook knows me even better than I know myself, and I DO want a conservatory.)
Twitch Plays Pokemon’s anarchy/democracy dual control system is a rather good illustration of Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2 model/metaphor for human judgement.
System 1: fast, impulsive, enormously powerful, but whose emotionally led decisions sometimes make little rational sense and may even be counter-productive: anarchy.
System 2: slow, time-consuming, effortful, necessary to make complex and difficult choices (eg teaching yr starter Surf) but exhausting and frustrating to apply for any length of time: democracy.
Having noticed this parallel there’s nothing I can do with it - the crossover between people following TPP and people I’m involved with at work applying dual systems theory is, er, not large. So it ends up here.
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of shaving in this country. The Gillette Mach3 was the razor to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-blade razor. Were we scared? Hell, no.
I somehow missed the ten-year anniversary of the best thing ever written about innovation and marketing.
This is the text of a talk I gave for “New MR Explode-A-Myth Day”. The myth I chose to explode was “Millennials Are Interesting”. The talk had a strict 5-minute limit. I gave it a new title for its blog edition - a “mary sue” is a character in a story (often a fan-written story) transparently written as a wish fulfilment substitute for the writer.
The myth I’m exploding is that millennials are interesting. But I’m not talking about the reality of people in their 20s, in their enormous diversity. I’m talking about millennials – their idealised, blanded-out marketing zombie version. Young people are awesome. Millennials are a construct designed to make them safe for marketers. The “millennial” is to a real twentysomething as a stock photo is to a selfie.
Before we talk about millennials, we need to define them. Or maybe we don’t: nobody else has. Millennials are a ‘generational cohort’ that starts and ends at the convenience of whoever’s researching them. The upper age bound is anywhere from 25 to 37 – I’ve seen the lower bound as low as 8. Every study is different. But even if there was a fixed definition – people 18 to 34 right now, say - the concept is still a scam.
IIEX Europe: The Best 6 Things I Saw (And The Worst Thing)
IIEX (Insight Innovation Exchange) is the most content-centric conference I’ve been to for a while - I saw something like 50 presentations across the two days, and missed another 60 (!) cos they were on different tracks. It’s a pretty brutal schedule - I stuck it out but I could feel myself getting overloaded, and frankly I ended the second day covering the “Sustainable Fishing” panel with a bunch of puns about fish because otherwise I’d just have been slumped in my seat looking like one. (It’s a mark of how fast the schedule was that for once, both the panel debates I saw felt too short!)
Last week, the chilling visage of David Shing was thrust upon the world. Equally horrific was his job title—“Digital Prophet.” That’s something you can be for a living? Yes, and there are plenty of other make-believe jobs out there, too.
I basically have one of these jobs, albeit not realllly in “tech”, though I’ve pushed back against suggested wacky titles and ended up with the relatively sensible “Content Director” (translation: “He writes stuff”). The Valleywag article is a bit of snarky fun, and I goggled at David Shing’s video too, but there’s a genuine hostility behind reaction to these roles which is interesting to unpack a bit.
Some of these people will be bullshit artists, some won’t: most jobs are similar in this regard. David Shing is quite possibly a bullshit artist, though the “bash the freak!” reception he’s been getting makes me - a shabbily dressed square who’s never had a tenth his sartorial confidence (however misguided) - warm to him a little and feel guilty at my initial boggling. Nathan Jurgenson isn’t a bullshit artist, though, or nothing I’ve read by him suggests that he is.
In my experience - certainly my experience in actually doing this kind of thing - a lot of these people do Minister Without Portfolio jobs, hired because they have good, flexible, connective brains rather than to fit a particular role. Once you’re in that kind of job - which I’ve done badly and (hopefully) well - a lot of the skill in it is getting yourself into useful places. Sitting at your desk running off digital prophecies isn’t going to win you any friends or give you much of a sense of worth in the long run. Getting stuck in on projects, responding promptly to calls for help, working out how interdisciplinary stuff connects, knowing stuff other people have been - through no fault of their own - too busy to know, and applying it humbly and helpfully… that’s the kind of thing free-floating workers try and do, dumb job title or not.
There’s a strain in tech which doesn’t like the idea of these soft jobs. It’s a strain that’s been quite prominent lately, with much hue and cry about making, prototyping, etc. The same strain also doesn’t really approve of qualitative research work, ethnography, or the application of theory in general. It’s related to a general, long-standing antipathy to social sciences from the business class - largely reciprocated, to be fair - and since tech culture is the Scrappy Doo to business culture’s Scooby, there’s no surprise in seeing it mirrored. Combine that with the post-80s trend to ever-smaller, more rigidly defined workforces doing longer hours and it’s no surprise there are howls of indignation at anyone whose role is opaque.
In a tech start-up, though, this strain isn’t completely unhealthy - companies do indeed need to do and make stuff. It should probably influence tech thinking, but not totally dominate it. If Snapchat employed twenty sociologists, I might raise an eyebrow at their priorities. I think, though, that they’re extremely sensible and far-sighted for employing one.
Some of it is, perhaps, a defensive fear. In a world with 19 messaging apps, the coders of the 20th need to have someone to look down on to reassure themselves they aren’t *total* parasites. There ARE significant problems with “bullshit jobs” in tech but they’re the same problems you see played out in every tech job - a myopic lack of diversity, for starters (which I have, obviously, personally benefited from), which is doubly bad when the unspoken common role beneath all of these jobs is to widen an organisation’s perspective. But the existence of the jobs themselves doesn’t strike me as a problem. Though of course, it wouldn’t.
Doing research for the mini-presentation I’m giving at “New MR Explode-A-Myth” day, which means reading a bunch of recent presentations and hype pieces and websites about “Millennials”.
The first thing I noticed is that very few of these bother with what seems to me a very basic definition - when do they start? When do they stop? This info is sometimes deep-buried, sometimes absent entirely. You can search for a long time - I just did - on the specialist youth agency site YPulse without coming to any firm conclusion as to what they actually mean when they say “Millennial”. And they say “Millennial” a LOT.
The second thing I noticed is that when they do offer a definition very few of them agree on what it is. Don’t imagine Wikipedia will help much either.
(This isn’t the point of my talk - in fact it surprises me slightly, I assumed by this point there would BE consensus among people using the term - instead it’s become one of those words everyone uses but nobody needs to define. Like influencer, or engagement, or insight, or brand - a list of old linguistic frenemies which should give the thoughtful researcher serious pause.)
“To what extent the sudden movement that brought us together was attributable to sentiment felt years before; to behaviour that was almost an obligation within the Templer orbit; or, finally, to some specific impetus of the car as it covered an unusually bad surface of road, was later impossible to determine with certainty. All I knew was that I had not thought it all out beforehand.”—
I’m reading Anthony Powell’s novel sequence A Dance To The Music Of Time at the moment. This passage comes from the third book - the narrator has met up with Templer, an old friend, and Templer’s wife and sister. On a drive back to his friend’s house, the narrator suddenly finds himself kissing Jean, the sister.
It’s an unexceptional bit of prose but it tickled me, because the attempts at self-analysis follow exactly the structure we use at work for thinking about ‘System 1’ decision-making, looking at personal influences (“sentiment felt years before”), social influences (“behaviour that was almost an obligation”) and environmental influences (“some specific impetus of the car”) - leaving aside planned intention, which is not usually the main factor.
Reblogged because a) this is the most sensible thing about sparkly magic neuroscience I’ve read in a while, and b) IT’S A TRANSCRIPT OF A TED TALK thank you thank you wonderful typer, now I can absorb 17 minutes of content in 3.
Like, hooray for #storytelling but I am a grown human and sometimes I prefer to take stories at my own pace i.e. READING THEM.
So I’m doing this webinar later in the month, having been invited by Annie Pettit of Peanut Labs. Annie is great, which was the main reason I agreed, though obviously I’m also doing this because I am 1x blowhard.
Anyway, tune in on the 27th, leave your questions, etc. about ANYTHING YOU LIKE. Things I will go into politician evasive mode over will include a) competitively interesting info about BrainJuicer and b) upcoming marks on my Popular blog. Beyond that, feel free.
While I’m in admin mode, I guess I can say publically that my job at BrainJuicer has changed slightly, and I’m now the company’s Content Director. Unlike most of my job titles, this one correlates reasonably well with what I do, AND is something where an ordinary person might guess what that is by looking at it. So that’s something of a win.
Actually - preen preen - I wasn’t wrong. I still think the best way to understand this stuff is not by looking at the stream as a monolithic thing which everyone experiences and deals with in the same way, but to look more closely at the different cultures which emerge within different streams, and try for critical analyses of the ways techniques for operating in “the stream” vary. i.e. to focus on streams themselves rather than focus too heavily on what they do to other objects (be it music or “content”)
My linked essay does a pretty good job (if I do say so myself) of exploring this in less abstract ways - it’s not a thunderbolt of perfection or anything, and it’s hobbled a bit by the stupid and self-important decision to invent a new word rather than just use “the stream”, but it stands up. That bad decision was partly a consequence of writing it for Pitchfork rather than for this blog and thinking “the stream” was too jargonish for that audience (so invent a new bit of jargon instead - well done me).
I thought - and was proved entirely right - that the kind of people I wanted to read it (planners, tech people) would be WAY more likely to if it was posted on a site they might bump into anyway, rather than on a market research blog. Nobody outside market research reads research blogs. (Except you, my wonderful followers).
“As a celebrity, I have an opportunity to make a living at being the spokesperson for the third or fourth rendition of a thought – promoting something that has already been proven”—
Kanye West talking to Steve McQueen for Interview magazine, quoted in this morning’s Metro.
He’s meaning it as a negative - he goes on to talk about wanting to be the inventor and thinker instead - but “the spokesperson for the third or fourth rendition of a thought” is such a perfect definition of ‘influence’, especially celebrity influence, in a social/connected world.
This is a good use of research - not in the service of “storytelling” but to resist and dismantle stories (by using a counter-story). Everything I know about how judgement and decision works suggests it won’t do much but it might do something and it’s good to have these figures in one place.
Yesterday I saw a very senior figure in the research world - about as senior as it gets - tweet fulsome praise to Channel 4 for screening Benefits Street and starting a “debate”. Of course this is bullshit. Benefits Street isn’t starting a debate, it’s parroting an existing “debate” funnelled from the government through the media.
The entire premise of commercial and social research used to be that if you gave people - your clients - information, they would make better decisions. We mostly now know this isn’t always or even usually true, and that generally people will make decisions then look for stories that back them up - something Benefits Street obviously provides. So research is shifting towards an admiration for storytelling and a respect for people who can interpret data in convincing ways.
But storytelling is not an inherent good, not remotely. If storytelling is based on flawed evidence, then that storytelling is bad and dangerous. If research tells a different story to the one the client wants to hear, it’s our job to tell that story instead. Lauding a program like Benefits Street for its controversy, its construction of a one-sided debate, is fundamentally anti-data, and anti-research.
“The booth that was staffed with the booth babes generated a third of the foot traffic (as measured by conversations or demos with our reps) and less than half the leads (as measured by a badge swipe or a completed contact form) while the other team had a consistently packed booth that ultimately generated over 550 leads, over triple from the previous year.”
Spencer Chen ran two booths at a tech convention — one following the traditional convention convention of having models front the stall, one with a couple of “show contractors… with established people skills.” Turns out that attendees preferred the non-booth babe booth. Hey, every tech/comic convention in the world, maybe you should think about this.
(I’m particularly interested in the idea that booth babes intimidate people — or, I should say, interested in that being attributed to “nerds being awkward around girls.” I’m unconvinced that’s the case; I’d be curious to know how many people didn’t talk to the booth babes because it seemed tacky/they didn’t want to look like they were perving on the models.)
Reading most consumer psychology papers is suspiciously like reading most superhero comics - the tantalising title, the scattered hints of an interesting resolution, the dawning realisation of the grindingly obvious outcome, the disgust at having read 22 pages of the same old nonsense, but oh wait THIS ONE looks really good….
“I’ve seen lots of bad research presentations and lots of good ones but actually very few boring ones. A boring presentation would be one that doesn’t elicit any reaction – you know from slide one where it’s going, and it goes there, and you basically agree with it, because who couldn’t? This is a worse problem in marketing than in research, because in research at least you usually have fresh data, and I can almost always find SOMETHING to enjoy in a chart, even if it’s just spitting blood over how it doesn’t prove what the presenter is saying. Marketing guru types and motivational speakers are much worse, however slick they are.”—
Betty Adamou of Research Through Gaming, one of the industry’s most enthusiastic and interesting entrepreneurs, is doing a series of interviews with “Heroes Of #MRX”. She asked me to do one, and while I am way too English to be comfortable about being a hero of anything, I’m also egotistical enough to like being interviewed. So HERE IT IS. http://www.researchthroughgaming.com/david/heroes-of-market-research-tom-ewing/
I am looking forward to the rest of the series! Thanks Betty.
I will be talking at the second NewMR “Explode A Myth” day - the myth I want to explode is “Millennials are interesting”. A slightly less trollish title would have been “Thinking of young people as ‘millennials’ is too glib” or even “Categorising them as millennials is a betrayal of young people by marketers”, but who needs less trollish titles?
Unlike most of my presentations these days this isn’t really related to anything BrainJuicer is doing and in fact I promise here and now that I will NOT mention the words “Daniel Kahneman” or “System 1” unless specifically goaded to in the Q&A. It’s purely me GRINDING MY AXE.
“It’s alarming how similar they are already. As the chart shows below, the social networks that started out with distinct purposes are merging into a homogenous soup of social, with little to distinguish them except legacy user demographics quickly being diluted by mass adoption.”—
Comical article which has a big check-it-out-bro list of features but doesn’t mention the word “culture” even once. The core features of social networks have been set for several years now - they are, and will remain, differentiated by culture, & by the multiple overlapping cultures they contain as well as the customs those have in common.
Honestly, you’d almost think marketers had never actually spent time on these places and only saw them as passive receptacles to be filled with bullshit and mined for metrics.
(NB this is no reflection on pspear’s tumblr, which posted it - it’s one of the best research-related tumblrs partly because it posts a lot of sources without undue comment, so by following it I feel I am following “the conversation” more - thanks Peter for doing it.)
“From data log analysis, the [Financial Times] learned that staggering numbers of new digital subscribers didn’t register for free before they [began] paying for a subscription — they came to our digital products with little or no apparent digital footprint and went straight into a purchase. “This insight destroyed the concept of a traditional, linear ‘sales funnel,’” says Betts.”—
This surprising anecdote comes from a meaty article about how news companies are hiring data scientists to better understand the behaviour of customers. Those insights are used to inform everything from marketing to developing new media products.
I wish the source had gone on to propose a hypothesis for this behaviour.
Does it simply mean that FT is doing a bad job of upselling, or does it reveal something about what motivates people to pay for a digital subscription?
- If you’re a person who thinks “I am the sort of person who reads the FT regularly” you might well also be the sort of person who thinks “I am the sort of person who can easily afford an FT subscription” - for prestige/social capital goods the psychological appeal of ‘free’ might clash with a kind of status appeal.
- Getting free stuff feels good. But buying part of a thing instead of the whole thing feels bad - especially if you want the whole thing. I would bet there are an awful lot of Angry Birds players who never bothered with the free app even though they didn’t know yet whether they liked the game.
It’s a BrainJuicer tradition to present something a little different at Christmas time. Here, with apologies to Charles Dickens, is part 1 of a 4-part insights fable for Christmastime. Check back f…
"Are we doing anything Christmassy on the blog?" asked our Marketing Director.
"I dunno," I answered, "I sort of had an idea for a Christmas Carol version, but I don’t think it’s going anywhere."
Many requests later - and an appearance in the company newsletter, which rather forced my hand - the thing exists in all its awkward glory. Having to write it very quickly between Proper Work (TM) and putting the bits up episodically meant there was no time to think about continuity or get the style down or indeed put in any jokes until Part 3. FAITHFUL TO THE DICKENS METHOD.
I don’t know who I’m trying to kid with this standoffish humbug really, it was fun to write. I am now demobbed until after Christmas so there will probably only be updates on my normal Tumblr. Happy Christmas to the good ship research and all who sail in her!
We were talking in the office the other day about ads as âcultural eventsâ â commercials that have some level of fame before they are even released, like the John Lewis Christmas ads in the UK. The…
It’s been a fine year for the Brian Juicer Blog - we more than doubled our readership and views from 2012 - and it feels like a good time to spotlight the posts you liked most this year. A countdow…
These are the most-read posts on the workblog from 2013. I wrote all of them (I wrote all the least-read ones too, obviously.)
The workblog is never quite as good/dynamic/interesting as I want it to be, because of necessity it has to take quite a low priority when there’s Actual Work to be done. But looking at the stuff which has worked I am rather proud of it - I don’t think there’s another corporate research blog which lets its writer dick about so much covers such a range of subjects.
It is incredibly disappointing (not to mention invalidating and possibly dysphoria-inducing) for a trans* or intersex person to voluntarily begin a survey being advertised to the LGBT or LGBTQI+ community only to have their identity/identities not…
Reposting this for my own reference and in case others have a use for it. Since I’m thinking of doing some survey-based research sometime soon, I may need to refer to this before long.