I wanted to call this topic Lies, damned lies and statistics but the point I want to make would have got lost in general talk about misleading advertising, which is already covered in a number of topics. My aim is to provide somewhere to put examples of where the purchaser and the citizen is possibly, or definitely, mislead by the use of statistics. It would also be a place to ask questions about that topic.
My first case popped up in this topic , where a quote from the mobile phone provider Belong was reproduced, which follows marked (1).
(1)
We use parts of Telstra’s mobile network and reaches more than 98.8% of the Australian population (and covers more than 1.6 million square kilometres of Australia).
If you want to show your mobile coverage for both population and land area there are a number of ways to do it. Here are three more that are fairly simple.
(2)
We use parts of Telstra’s mobile network and reaches more than 26,340,000 of the Australian population (and covers more than 1.6 million square kilometres of Australia).
(3)
We use parts of Telstra’s mobile network and reaches more than 26,340,000 of the Australian population (and covers more than 20.8 % of Australia).
(4)
We use parts of Telstra’s mobile network and reaches more than 98.8% of the Australian population (and covers more than 20.8 % of Australia).
Firstly I want to assume that their measurements are accurate, that is the four statements all have true figures that are close enough to reality for the purpose.
The aim of showing the figures four ways is to look at which approach provides the clearest and most useful information to the reader - which is not the same as being true.
Method (2) is the raw data. Its weakness is that most people do not have comparative numbers at hand, if you want to know how likely you are to get a connection these numbers are probably not much use.
Method (4) is expressing the fraction of people and places where you will get coverage. In my view this is the most useful as it makes it plain that coverage is pretty good where there are a lot of people (cities and towns) but there is a great deal of Oz off the beaten track where there is none.
So why would Belong use method (1) which is partly one approach and partly the other? Because, despite being accurate, it makes plain what is good and obscures what it bad. Isn’t that a short description of advertising?
Please add your own examples for discussion.