Disinformation, Misinformation & Malinformation in Market Research
Information is highly valued in modern society. It appeals to our rational sense and the fundamental idea that it is essential for correct decision-making. Today, traditional information sources (media, governments, brands, and institutions) face the challenge of providing information attractively so their target can value its content within an information and content universe that finds new communicators thanks to social media. It has become very challenging for the public to identify credible content and sources for their information needs.
Traditional information sources have been losing credibility in the past decades. The population is now aware of propaganda strategies from the government, subliminal publicity from brands, and the ideological bias of news sources. We live in an era where there is no one truth but tiny fragments of truth. Information is no longer convincing; there needs to be an emotional element to make it “valid.” Hence, traditional information sources compete with influencers, YouTubers, and celebrities, who, in many situations, are more credible for some people than conventional sources.
From its beginnings, market research has played a substantial role in identifying communication elements, especially for traditional information sources (brands, governments, news, and institutions). We should remember that market research provides services for such conventional information sources, not for the general public.
In a very simplified way, the contribution of market research to the content of these traditional information sources is based on two elements: the statistical data (quantitative, hard data) and the insights (quantitative, soft data). These two elements complement each other. A complete market research study would provide the hard data that supports the “objective information” and the soft data (insights) that deals with the emotional elements “to reach the target” and guarantee that the information will be valued.
The need to accompany the statistical data with emotional elements reveals the value loss of the hard percentage data. It is disturbing that statistical data has lost its value and credibility in the information age. This is due to the over-exploitation and misuse of statistical data, which negatively impact the information society. By this, I do not mean that the statistical data is wrong, but rather how it is disseminated and communicated. We frequently observe impact statistical data taken out of context and oriented to generate an emotional impact on the population. The statesman Winston Churchill, who led England during World War II, said: “I only believe in the statistics that I falsify myself.” (The Psychology of Totalitarianism, Dement, Pg. 18)
If we stop and pause, a conscious reflection, away from our roles as market researchers, brand managers, political leaders, journalists, or any other professional function we perform, can we point out that we truly believe and trust in the information that reaches our hands? Or, do we think that, to some extent, it is information that is not entirely true or that it supports a half-truth or a truth with an expiration date (very short or already expired)?
The information crisis is rooted in our subjective perception of the issuer/source, not initially of the information. We have all developed the ability to identify our affinity or not with different sources of information/content, and, to a large extent, we decide to expose ourselves to the sources we trust the most, even when we cannot validate said sources. We choose our news sources, brands, celebrities, communicators, and politicians because of our ideological and cultural affinity. However, the information they share with us could be untrue.
The purpose of manipulating information is to convince the target audience. All communication is organized, disaggregated, and managed with a strategy to generate conviction. This process already tells us about an ideological and cultural management of information that will exclude some elements and enhance others, in the best of cases. From this, the information and content communicated may be identified as disinformation, misinformation, and malformation.
Let us then see what these three terms mean, currently presented in extremely relevant forums such as the World Economic Forum, the UN, the European Parliament, and the parliaments of several leading countries worldwide as the fundamental elements to be resolved in current society.
Disinformation.
According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN specialized agency on IT and communication, disinformation that is false and deliberately created to harm a person, social group, organization or government.[1]
“Disinformation, an act of lying, is also intentional because it seeks to distort a fact and present it as truth. Likewise, it is a set of systematic and organized deceptions in a context where the media are highly developed (Durandin, 1995). Most forms of disinformation, such as lies and some propaganda (e.g., Brexit and the Trump election campaign), are misleading because the source intends them to be. However, other forms of disinformation, such as conspiracy theories and false alarm calls, are misleading simply because the source systematically benefits from it (Fallis, 2015).”[2]
Misinformation.
“Information that is false but not created with the intention of creating any harm.” (International Telecommunication Union).
“Misinformation as false information must have semantic content and does not represent the facts as they are; misinformation as inaccurate information, incomplete information may be perfectly true, but lack of information may be a type of inaccuracy; misinformation as misleading information, information that has the propensity to cause false beliefs (Fallis, 2016). Information myths can be classified as disseminating unreal facts based on word of mouth and rumor.” (Buenos Aires’ University, https://www.redalyc.org/journal/2630/263062301010/html/)
MaInformation.
“Information that is based on reality, used to create harm to a person, social group, organization or country.” (International Telecommunication Union)
In both Disinformation and Misinformation, it is information that, intentionally or not, seeks to get the public to adopt the sender’s message as truth, that is, to make a narrative that is in the interest of the person who spreads it their own.
Tanto en la Disinformation como en la Misinformation, se trata de información que de manera intencional o no, busca que el público adopte como verdad el mensaje del emisor, esto es, que haga propia una narrativa que está en el interés de quien la propaga.
At the most recent meeting of the World Economic Forum (January 2024), it was concluded that Disinformation and Misinformation constitute the main Short-Term Global Risk. This is more relevant than environmental, political, and economic issues.[3]
The reporting experience of significant world events such as the pandemic, climate change, and the 2018 United States elections has raised significant concerns about this issue. Constantly and commonly, the media labels it as Fake News in a general and sometimes wrong way. “Tandoc, Lim and Ling identify six types of fake news in scientific literature, such as satire (humor or exaggeration); parody (differs from satire in its use of non-objective information to inject humor and ridicule); fabrication (they have no objective basis but are published in news style to appear legitimate), manipulation (depicts doctored visual news); advertising (intended to sell or promote a product, company or idea); propaganda (created by a political entity to influence public perceptions) and establish dimensions in reviewing definitions of fake news and identify two domains rated from high to low.” (Buenos Aires’ University, https://www.redalyc.org/journal/2630/263062301010/html/)
The classification of what today constitutes an act of Disinformation, Misinformation, Mal-information, or even Fake News falls mainly on world organizations and governments, including their analysis and control bodies that they have (ministers of health, electoral institutions, etc.). However, in everyday life, the media and companies take concrete actions to control these problems. Social networks like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter (now X) have been questioned about their censorship policies on content that is not aligned with the narrative for critical social and political issues like the COVID-19 pandemic, support for the 2018 Trump election, and climate change, among others. Rather than demonstrating the truth, we live in a war between those who control the media and those who construct different narratives. Censorship, under the banner of protecting the population from Disinformation and Misinformation, is an activity that is increasingly used by traditional and digital media.
According to the definitions I present here and the issues of concern on this topic by the World Economic Forum (WEF, Davos, January 2024), many communication contents today fall into one of these three definitions of disinformation. Brand advertising, political campaigns, corporate image development oriented to climate change issues, social health or education campaigns, competition content and discrediting commercial, political or social competition, and many more.
I have more than 35 years of experience in market research (nowadays, the insight industry), and I am trying to remember the discussion of these topics among professionals and agencies. I have yet to be aware that discussing them in the past was done or was unnecessary for different reasons. It is an issue of utmost importance today, and promoting an honest and sincere dialogue is essential. For this, I propose some questions. They are only some of what can be done and are not necessarily the most relevant, but they are a good starting point.
- Is the topic of disinformation relevant to market research?
- How far do we consider the responsibility of market research on this issue of disinformation?
- What should be the position of market research regarding these issues?
- How should an agency or independent investigator address such an issue with a client?
- Is marketing research’s hands tied on this issue of disinformation because it has a direct and complete dependency under contract with its client?
[1] https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/AsiaPacific/Pages/Events/2021/ASP%20Regional%20Dialogue%20on%20Digital%20Transformation/Session%20Pages/RD-Session-5.aspx
[2] Guy Durandin, La información, la desinformación y la realidad (Barcelona: Paidós, 1995) y Don Fallis, “What Is Disinformation?”, Library Trends. vol. 63, núm. 3, pp. 401-426, 2015. <https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0014> citados por Alonso Estrada-Cuzcano et al., “Disinformation y Misinformation, Posverdad y Fake News: precisiones conceptuales, diferencias, similitudes y yuxtaposiciones”, Información, Cultura y Sociedad, revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliotecológicas, núm. 42, pp. 93-106, 2020 <https://www.redalyc.org/journal/2630/263062301010/html/>.
[3] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/ai-disinformation-global-risks/
Proyecto Noesis Int 
No trackbacks yet.