In our discussion on Wednesday, we looked at various sources of information. As was noted at the course’s outset, information is neither free, nor widely available. Is there such a thing as too much information? Does information lead to analysis paralysis?
In The Best and the Brightest, David Halberstam presented this argument in light of the America government’s decisions related to the Vietnam war. More recently, Malcolm Gladwell plumbed this concept in Blink. Gladwell argues that people with less information can make better decisions than people with more information. Autoblog cleanly applies Gladwell’s argument to the automobile business.
Is something else going on? Can people with less information really make better, or more accurate, decisions? Gladwell’s argument is backed by anecdotal evidence. Could Gladwell miss the larger argument? Why do some people correctly value the right information and others incorrectly value the wrong information?
This issue is relevant for marketers because, as we discussed, information is available from so many sources. We can collect information on macro behaviors such as the amount spent on leisure activities to micro behaviors such as how our brain activity changes when we get a coupon for Tide.
Do we suffer from information overload, which leads to incorrect decisions as Gladwell argues? Alternatively, are we incorrectly valuing some information but not correctly valuing other information as Halberstram argues?
8 responses so far ↓
danielr2 // January 26, 2007 at 1:50 pm |
I believe it is a combination of the two. In Gladwell’s case, the thought of an information overload is prevalent in today’s society. Whether you want to or not, you receive a bombardment of info everyday through e-mails, television, radio, and other people. Gladwell stresses that correct decisions are the ones inspired before too much info is consumed, hence the name of his book “Blink” (as in blink of an eye). He gives examples ranging from the music industry to the police force in New York City. I agree with the notion of making a decision before too much info is gathered to avoid confusion, but what if the incorrect value is placed on that info. I think finding the info with the most accuracy and relevance is key, then applying Gladwell’s idea of action before an overload is necessary.
glennr1 // January 26, 2007 at 2:53 pm |
If we bombard potential or present customers with too much information (mailers, emails, phone calls, etc) they will simply ignore it all after a while. There is a certain point where we can no longer concentrate on what is important, and there just isn’t enough time to sift through all of the data that is available to us. You need some method to organize information before you try to absorb it. I believe that how you go through the data available to you matters more than how much or how little information you have.
allisonw2 // February 7, 2007 at 10:40 am |
I believe there is a certain point where a person might fall into an overloaded state. But I do not believe however, that someone who doesn’t have as much information will always make the right decision. Even though the saying “ignorance is bliss” might suggest so, is that really true? I think that not knowing enough information really leaves your decision to you being “lucky” and making the right choice (if there is a right choice to be made). Personally, I’d rather know what is the better option rather than taking a guess in the dark.
People with more information might spend longer making a decision, but in the end will make the better or right choice. When you are bombarded with so much information, either in the form of commericals, paper ads, phone calls, junk mail, etc. you begin to “turn off” that information gathering part of your brain, or at least I do. Regardless, as mentioned in a comment above, everyone goes through the information available to them before making a decision, no matter how much information they have.
stev1m // February 12, 2007 at 2:12 pm |
I was in this seminar this weekend that was discussing the differences between people who are focused on the “out-come” of situations, and people who are focused on the “process” of getting to the out-come. The room was torn between the two groups. I personally feel that you can have too much information, and run into the problem of “analysis paralysis”. The more information you have/ know the more risk you see, the more risk you see, the less you are willing to buy, invest and create. Countries can plan wars all day along, but nothing will happen if the troops do move.
I am not saying that having plenty of valuable information is bad; I am just saying that at some point a decision needs to be made. If we fall into a pit of information that begins to consume us with confusing questions, and open us up to seeing every single risk that is out there, then we would never get any where. Or it would take us along time to get there.
In my life I look at the information that is valuable to me, and make a decision, if the out come turns out rocky, then so be it. I will have to live that choice. I do believe the amount of the information should be in comparison to the dollar amount that is related to the decision. For example, when I want to buy a new T.V., I just find what I want and buy it; I do not require a lot of information on that decision. But, if I was investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into a new business venture, then fill me up with all the information you got! What do you think?
chrisc2 // February 24, 2007 at 4:34 pm |
I do believe that there is tons of information out in the world on every subject. It grows each day, hour, minute and second. But I believe the more information you gain the more of a chance that parts of your information are incorrect or misdirected. You see it is kind of like when you tell a friend a detailed story about you. They perceive it one way, but you are the most accurate source. When your friend tells one of their friends, it’s going to be slightly different. It’s going to be essentially the same story just from a different perspective. Small things will change each time the story is told. Then 30 some odd links down that chain someone perceives a distorted story, different from the original one. I would argue that this can be related to the topic of information and how we use it in business. The saying that goes, “Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear” could apply as well. Information is only good if you believe it is accurate. Some marketers use “feel good” words to give you the illusion of value such as “Guarantee” or “Life changing System”. A good example is those late night commercials that promote their get rich quick schemes in real-estate, or buying and selling bonds. I guess for now, I will continue to go with my gut-feeling since I trust that more than some energetic guy trying to sell me something on late night TV.
kkovacic // February 26, 2007 at 10:52 am |
I think too much or enough information is a very relative term that depends on an individual. Being that we are very selective of what we pay attention to, it is marketers’ job to put information out there- make it available. It is our decision whether or not we pay attention to it and process it However, the information that is available to us could be inaccurate – just to influence us to behave, feel or act towards a certain object or activity in a certain way. Is the information one sided, designed to trick the consumers into purchasing or are the messages marketers send out honest and true? The fact is that too much of irrelevant information is made available to us.
I think some individuals need a lot more information to make a decision than other individuals. Therefore, marketers’ job is to make that information available and hopefully consumers can choose to pay attention to a small, pertinent fragment of it.
nicoshas1 // March 1, 2007 at 10:07 pm |
I think that the effect of having too much, or too little information when making decisons is highly dependent on the situation and to whom the information is being presented. For example in the Autoblog link, the article agrees with Gladwell that certain postions in business would make better decisons without having all the extra information presented to them. As far as consumers are concerned, having too much information presented at one time can drive a consumer away from a product, or exhaust their attention to certain stimuli. Both of these scenarios would support Gladwells idea that too much info has a negative effect on decision making. On the othere hand Halberstram argument is valid in the fact that in cases where we have alot of information that our perceptions and attitudes can interfere with evaluating the right information. It all relates back to what information is being presented and to whom. There are definitly cases where having minimal information is best, and there are cases where having to much information can cause over analysis. As a whole i think both of these ideas are valid because they must be applied to certain situations as opposed to applying them to generally marketing and information presentation.
lpatman // April 2, 2007 at 10:47 am |
I think there is a point when you have too much information. Just like anything if you start thinking about something too much you start to get confused. I also think that if you don’t have enough information you are also vulnerable to hearing something that isn’t true and believing it. So, I think that there is a good medium on the things you should know and how much information you know about them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.