Text archives Help


Aw: RE: [projectvrm] Article: Smart Homes Lack Consumer Connection


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Graham Reginald Hill" < >
  • To: "T.Rob" < >
  • Cc: "'ProjectVRM list'" < >
  • Subject: Aw: RE: [projectvrm] Article: Smart Homes Lack Consumer Connection
  • Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:00:35 +0200
  • Importance: normal
  • Sensitivity: Normal
Hi T.Rob
 
Thanks for your response.
 
I have said it before and I will no doubt say it again; 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks!".
 
I read through the research conclusions published in Marketing Week and then searched for the original research at Gekko (the market research agency who carried out the research that was reported by Marketing Week). Unfortunately, I did not find the original research. I assume that you at least read the Marketing Week article. Without access to the original research and its underlying methodology I must assume that the conclusions it drew were based in large part on the responses of the consumers surveyed. It is tautologically obvious that the research authors will have sythesised these conclusions, in established marketing research tradition. I find your statement that "... the main reasons why (the) authors concluded..." adds no explanatory value and to the contrary, is somewhat disingenuous. It makes the completely unfounded suggestion that the authors conclusions were biased in favour of an already established position and not closely related to the consumer responses. 
 
The rest of your email (and I assume blog post) is not only not informed by any further details of the original survey but worse, is biased by your own well documented position. In short, you fall prey to the same logical errors that you unfoundedly accuse the market researchers at Gekko of. What were the words you used, ah yes, 'spin doctoring'.
 
I value your opinions. I often find them both well informed and well thought through, if lacking a little in human empathy. But I also value others' opinions too. It helps me produce a better, more rounded synthesis in the Hegelian tradition of enquiry. If I may be so humble as to suggest it, perhaps you would benefit from taking the same broad approach to synthesis too.

Best regards from Bristol.
 
PS. I wil respond to your earlier email in due course. Unfortunately, I have more important work to attend to at the moment. Apologies
-- 
Dr. Graham Hill

UK +44 7564 122 633
DE +49 170 487 6192
http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill

Partner
Optima Partners
http://www.optimapartners.co.uk

Senior Associate
Nyras Capital
http://www.nyras.co.uk

Associate
Ctrl-Shift
https://www.ctrl-shift.co.uk
 
 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. August 2014 um 18:32 Uhr
Von: "T.Rob" < >
An: "'Graham Reginald Hill'" < >, "'Doc Searls'" < >
Cc: "'ProjectVRM list'" < >
Betreff: RE: [projectvrm] Article: Smart Homes Lack Consumer Connection

Thanks for the link, Graham! 

 

> Interestingly, the main reasons why the majority of consumers are still not interested in this smart devices are too high cost, lack of usefulness, too much complexity and fears over data privacy.

 

I think you meant "Interestingly, the main reasons why authors concluded that the majority of consumers are still not interested in this smart devices are too high cost, lack of usefulness, too much complexity and fears over data privacy," yes?  Or did you intentionally assert this statement as verified fact?  

 

I do not find the article actionable or useful.  I started to write out my reasoning and it quickly turned into a blog post which can be found here:

http://iopt.us/1BCDmAq

https://ioptconsulting.com/marketing-weeks-flawed-iot-survey/

 

In short, Marketing Week's new survey on consumer attitudes toward #IoT is as notable as much for what's left out and how it is framed as it is for the conclusions it draws. 

 

Pull quotes

 

In discussing the aggregation of factors under the "unimportant" category:

But [the survey category] “not considered important in my life” could also be that the functionality of the devices on offer is perceived as laughable.  “You want me to replace a perfectly good wall switch with…my phone? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!”  This is the group into which I fall.  Admittedly this conclusion requires an informed and tech-savvy consumer.  However, targeting the portion of the market who do not understand this creates and incentive and business model based on keeping them clueless, which also happens to facilitate the device-as-data-collection-portal paradigm.

 

On the framing used in the article:

"Perhaps when your audience is an industry driven by the collection and analysis of consumer data, suggesting that consumers have significant privacy concerns is taboo. Or perhaps the researchers genuinely wanted to drill down in this area because it is important but that intention got lost in publication.  Hard to say what is going on and since the usefulness of the conclusions varies so widely depending on how you read the intent here, any credence we each give the study will tend to align with our own confirmation bias.  Anyone can interpret the results according to their own views and that, for me anyway, renders the results meaningless."

 

Kind regards,

-- T.Rob

 

T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner

IoPT Consulting, LLC

+1 704-443-TROB

https://ioptconsulting.com

https://twitter.com/tdotrob

 

From: Graham Reginald Hill [mailto: ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:20 AM
To: Doc Searls
Cc: ProjectVRM list
Subject: [projectvrm] Article: Smart Homes Lack Consumer Connection

 

Hi Doc

 

This article in Marketing Week sets out what consumers think about smart devices - potentially a form of quantified self - in connected homes.

 

Interestingly, the main reasons why the majority of consumers are still not interested in this smart devices are too high cost, lack of usefulness, too much complexity and fears over data privacy.

 

The research raises a lot of questions. Thoughts?

 

Best regards from Bristol, Graham

 


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

§