« Nielsen reshuffles, but will it bring us better numbers??? | Main | A little recognition is always nice »

October 16, 2007


Diane Lennox

I agree with Mr. Chumley, that causality vs correlation is the big question. WE interprets the association of innovative terms with stock prices to mean that one must use innovative language. I have to wonder if the innovative language is of any value if there's no meat behind the sizzle. Apple really IS innovative -- they don't just talk it. The second example of the trucking company in the AdWeek article is more interesting to me, as it seems to stick more to the facts of discovery. Key point here: Talk is cheap. Walk may cost more, but does a better job of getting you there.

Alan Chumley

Words can drive stock price? Wow that would make some uncomfortable. Without seeing behind WagEd's methodological black curtain, I presume they're talking correlation not causality. Interesting concept, but potentially dangerous claim. And, I'm a huge fan of social network analysis and heat maps. Bring 'em on.

The comments to this entry are closed.