Data is meaningless if it isn’t useful

Alan Jacobson takes a critical look at EyeTrack07. In his post, he notes that the study, which tracks via nerdy glasses what articles people look at when reading the news.

The study notes that when people choose to read something, they tend to read it (duh?). But the critical flaw in the study is that it doesn’t offer much on why people select certain news items over others, says Jacobson:

The key word in this sentence is “selected.” I don’t believe EyeTrack07 provides any data that speaks to how or why test subjects made selections – which is what editors really want to know.

The most amazing thing is the banality of this finding. Did we really need a study to tell us that people read most of the stories they select?

Moreover, what is the practical application of this information? How can an editor boost the readership of his or her newspaper knowing that people tend to read most of the stories they choose to read?

It’s an interesting study, but what about the mounds of data showing that readers on Web sites tend to be in and out of a site in a matter of minutes? Clearly, when people read the news in their natural habitat (early morning in their underwear, most likely) they don’t wear crazy glasses and linger over the material for 90 minutes.

Remember that PEJ study I keep talking about? Top reason people don’t read the paper is that they don’t have enough time.

Maybe the correct solution to declining subscriptions is to force your readers to read for 90 minutes.