Drowning in maths and starving for ideas

Most large competitors can buy much the same category data. Then two giant competitors buy the same data, stare at the same trends and congratulate themselves on being data-driven in opposite directions.

The difference appears in interpretation. One retailer sees a common purchase sequence and creates another customer segment. Another recognises that shoppers are assembling a service the retailer never intended. Two software businesses hear the same customer phrase; one stores it as research material, while the other realises it describes the market more clearly than the existing position. Analysis remains necessary. Ideas detached from evidence can waste money with great confidence. But adding information does not guarantee a useful decision. More rows may refine the description of yesterday while leaving the next move untouched.

Several explanations should be allowed to compete around one finding. People with different experience will notice different anomalies. A promising interpretation can be tested quickly enough to discover whether it changes behaviour outside the research discussion. At the end, the organisation may own exactly the same dataset as everyone else. The next research meeting still has to decide which interpretation deserves a trial, who will run it and what result would count as failure. A week later, that result may still be inconclusive.

Behavioural principles

Behavioural ideas at play in this post

Short, plain-English explanations of the principles behind this post, with links to related books and examples in the archive.