Opposite of what the data says? - Neil Wilkins podcast GUEST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kX8_-Ca1Qc

---

The risk of getting ourselves in a bit of a pickle by putting all our trust and budget into data alone?

In my recent chat with Neil Wilkins on his podcast (a real pleasure, thank you Neil), we had a good dig into the delicate balance between artistic integrity and data-driven marketing. A few things came up:

We all like the security that data brings, but it only tells us what happened yesterday, not what might happen tomorrow.

Ever had a look at those traditional audience surveys and spotted the classic 'Say-Do Gap'?

If you ask someone to pick a snack for next week, their logical side will probably say banana. But when the time comes *especially after a long day* the emotional brain often wins out, and the chocolate bar gets chosen instead.

Are you leaving enough room in your strategy for the human bit?

I usually suggest an 80/20 split. Put 80% of your budget into the channels you know work, those that have been validated before. But what if you used the remaining 20% to have a bit of a play? Try purposeful experimentation, or even do the exact opposite of what the historical data says, just to see what happens. Cause friction, create attention.

In the full episode, we have a look at the 'Prattfall Effect' as well to build trust (thanks for highlighting Richard Shotton in both of his books 'The Choice Factory 'and latest with MichaelAaron Flicker 'Hacking the Human Mind: The Behavioral Science Secrets Behind 17 of the World's Best Brands'), an idea about maybe you should market in overarching 'seasons' instead of stressful short-term launches, and the danger of 'cognitive surrender' to AI.

You can watch the full conversation on YouTube or your friendly local podcast service.