If only the leaders of our democracy were educated in marketing research, we could have the guarantee that they will study the Data Insights after every election. Instead, I feel they treat the future of our society through the prism of “the winner takes it all”. The close percentages in the results might play a big role in influencing their perspectives. I don’t blame them, I still struggle to understand narrow and wide variability. It would make a big difference if someone stop for a moment and start questioning if the Data obtained from the elections is statistically significant, and if they truly have a clear path for an action plan.
The problem is that after the elections, regardless of the results and the quality of the Data collected, politicians jump into conclusions, disregard one segment of the population and govern or create an action plan that in some cases might not be a true representation of the entire country.
If the leaders in our democracy would stop for one second to think like marketing leaders, they would recognize the complicated task of handling a “Purple”market, and understand that their “Blue” or “Red” agendas, albeit supported by data that is mathematically significant, further analysis is required to understand if it is statistically significant, meaningful, and stable. Without significant Data Insights, any plans for the future might alienate the other segment of the population.
STATUS 1: Tempted to talk about Quota sampling, and the proportions of the population being represented in the US Senate, but I want to keep the conversation light…
STATUS 2: Insert irony in Status 1