What’s in a number?

Did you read that us Brits have a spring in our step? The Office for National Statistics has published the first results of the ‘Happiness Index’. We did pretty well. Across the country, the average mark was 7.5. Well above average, and pretty encouraging considering the fragile state of the economy and the effects of the biggest spending cuts in generations starting to be felt. 7.5? It could have been a lot worse.

Hang on a minute. 7.5 out of 10 happy. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean we are nearly three quarters happy? Happy three quarters of the time? Happy with three quarters of the things we do? Three quarters of us are happy and a quarter of us are not?

I’m now confused. What am I supposed to think when the survey says 8.2 next time – or goes down to 6.2? In fact, the more I think about it, how exactly do you aggregate something as intangible and inherently personal as ‘happiness’? This figure now seems rather arbitrary.

This goes straight to the heart of some important communications considerations when publishing statistics. We’ve all become a bit cynical of the ‘eight out of ten cats’ headlines. But can we shine some light on this dense and confusing statistical fog? We can if we take some straightforward but vital steps. Provide a clear research method. Explain what you sought to measure - and why. Describe how you went about it – and why. Explain how you’ve calculated the outcomes.

To take the example above, what we know is that ONS asked people to score the following between 1 and 10: how satisfied with your life are you nowadays? To what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? How happy did you feel yesterday? How anxious did you feel yesterday? The combined totals told us that just over 75.5 per cent scored seven or more out of 10 for overall life satisfaction. 

People like to hear something credible, and scientific sounding. To many, flicking through the morning paper or surfing the web on their lunch break, a quick scan of this methodology should suffice. And given the fact it is 7.5, rather than 2 or 3, there’s undoubtedly a feel-good factor created by it.

But, unless the methodology is sound and clearly explained, a communications campaign can become a communications nightmare. Once people see beyond the headline they can quickly become disillusioned and before you know it, opponents are pulling your methodology apart.

Remember those maths questions that ask you to ‘show your working’? The principle when publishing research is exactly the same. Unless there is absolute clarity over what you sought to measure, and how you went about it, the whole process can be fatally undermined further down the line. This weekend has already seen some comment pieces across the media picking holes in the Happiness Index. You’ll never please everyone, but you can help your chances by adhering to a few simple rules. 

Tom Yazdi
Consultant
tom@linstockcommunications.com