{"id":1091,"date":"2018-07-26T08:54:15","date_gmt":"2018-07-26T07:54:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/?p=1091"},"modified":"2018-07-26T10:03:54","modified_gmt":"2018-07-26T09:03:54","slug":"facebook-fake-news-and-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/facebook-fake-news-and-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Facebook, Fake News and Research"},"content":{"rendered":"

Facebook hasn\u2019t exactly got a stellar reputation when it comes to numbers. Even the most rudimentary statistics (like how many people are on the platform) seem prone to what might perhaps politely be termed \u2018a degree of variation\u2019.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s one thing issuing numbers that turn out to be incorrect, it\u2019s quite another to set out to mislead.<\/p>\n

A few weeks ago, Facebook launched Prime Time Anytime at a major \u2018Video Effectiveness\u2019 event that brought together, and I quote: \u201cThe brightest minds in research, insights and product to share information that will help advertisers and agencies drive brand performance on and off of Facebook and Instagram.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two of these brightest minds shared the results<\/a> of an eye-tracking study designed to provide insights into how viewers\u2019 attention vacillated between what was on the TV and what was on the mobile device in front of them.<\/p>\n

So far, so \u2026 well, OK. Participants were of course aware that they were being monitored so their actions might have been a tad un-natural (as the study\u2019s author, Professor Jonathan Freeman admitted). And the sample was biased young \u2013 something FB stated but didn\u2019t explain what if anything they had done about it. And \u2018eye tracking\u2019 suggests the sort of work Lumen have pioneered that tracks eye movements across a screen. This was more \u2018head tracking\u2019. It had nothing to do with how respondents\u2019 eyes move over a screen.<\/p>\n

Where things did though cross the line between something interesting if not quite as interesting as all that, to something plain wrong came when Greta Baisch of Facebook tried to equate attention levels (defined by \u2018eye\u2019 movements) with viewability as defined by the IAB\u2019s famous and indeed fatuous \u201850% in view for at least 2 seconds\u2019 rule. Actually, they didn\u2019t even do that \u2013 the 50% in view bit was dropped to focus on the 2 seconds part of the equation.<\/p>\n

Greta\u2019s explanation, almost embarrassing to watch was that 30% of all TV ads get no visual attention at all. Nothing here on audio by the way \u2013 despite the fact that even the most junior marketer will be aware that TV is an audio-visual medium.<\/p>\n

Then she moved on to say: \u201cIf you wanted to apply a like-for-like comparison you could probably argue\u201d that only 60% of TV ads make it to the 2-second level applied to online video.<\/p>\n

Greta\u2019s coyness suggests that she could sense her research credibility falling even as she went through what sounded like a speech where the PR angle trumped research.<\/p>\n

It might be worth pointing out the weaknesses in her argument:<\/p>\n