Got Milk?
Whole milk, it turns out, has gotten a bad rap.
For decades, whole milk has been a dietary pariah, but a recent article published in the Washington Post calls into question the research that made dairy fat the dietary outcast that it is today.
How could physicians, dietitians and regulators have gotten it so wrong? The answer, as it turns out, is a cautionary tale for market researchers, product managers, and marketers of all stripes.
Cause and Effect
At its heart, the research that demonized whole milk failed because it confused proximity with causality. The research found that people who drink whole milk have a higher rate of heart disease. (Well, sort of - lots of outliers and research biases affected the interpretation of the research.)
The problem was, the researchers didn't control for other variables so they were unable to show a causal relationship between milk fat and heart disease. Just because two facts exist doesn't mean that one causes another.
Let's look at a simple example. I drink coffee - a lot of it. I'm also bald. Does coffee cause baldness? Well, if you could see the pictures from my last family reunion, you'd see a pretty strong case of genetics at work on my hairline.
Business Blinders
Ok, so how does poor research from the 1950s affect businesses today? Like those nutritional researchers a half century ago, we still easily fall into the Causality Void.
Case in point: A few years ago, I was working on some Voice of the Customer analysis. Our renewal rates on both units and dollars was falling and we needed to understand why. As we dug into the data, we found two major themes that explained why customers didn't like doing business with us:
- It was difficult to work with us; and
- Our product was too difficult to use
Recommendation? If we make our product easier to use (and - oh by the way - here's a list of requested enhancements), our renewal rates will improve. Ta. Da.
Sound Familiar?
So what's wrong? As it turns out, plenty.
We didn't ask former customers why they were leaving. Nor did we ask existing customers why they were spending less with us. We assumed that if they liked us, they'd be loyal. Cognitive bias, my old friend, good to see you!
Just as damning, we assumed causality without actually establishing it. Customers who left said our product was difficult to use, ergo our retention rate will improve if we make the product easier to use. Except it didn't work that way.
First, customers who renewed with us also said the product was difficult to use (so the effect on renewal rates was questionable). Second, as we looked at macro-environmental issues, what we discovered was that many of our former customers didn't exist - they'd been acquired or folded up shop.
Market researchers and customer advocates want to make businesses better by helping them understand the complex world of human behavior. We need to be able to say "If X, then Y" so that businesses are able to make better decisions. Before making such powerful statements, though, all researchers need to be able to clearly show the linkage path between factor X and factor Y. The risks if we don't are just too great.
Ask the millions suffering from obesity and diabetes who maybe, just maybe, would have been better off had they stuck with whole milk.