What might Galileo be tweeting now?

I have to admit that my knowledge of history ends around 1700 (the problem of a grammar school education when you are forced to give up subjects like history in favour of Latin which are felt to be more ‘essential’). However even that helped me when discussing the guidelines at the MRS Social Media conference on Thursday with Barry Ryan.

Before I begin, let me say that we’ve worked with the MRS for decades, I believe it does a great deal of good for the industry, and I continue to support it even when - as in this case - I disagree with its direction.

It struck me when listening to Barry that the MRS was taking a stance not dissimilar to the pre-Reformation church. Like Galileo’s persecutors taking passages of scripture verbatim and arguing that, for example, the sun went round a 6,000 year-old earth, they were relying on antiquated interpretations of scripture to propose their views. Last week, the MRS professional standards committee were quoting the Data Protection Act from decades ago and the 1947 Nuremburg Trials to justify their positions on why the industry should never do social media research. The problem they failed to see is that the world has moved on significantly in recent times and the Data Protection Act is now wildly out of date and desperately needs re-writing.

Although the premise of the Data Protection Act still holds (and I believe it is still valid) the advice based on it was written in a pre-Internet era and is just not appropriate now. Furthermore it is being ignored by our data analyst competitors who are profitably working in the Internet world and taking our business away from us. For the MRSB to make arguments hiding behind such legislation is potentially digging a deep grave for the MR industry.

Indeed, whilst talking today, I did wonder if the ‘elephant in the room’ is in fact the MRS Code of Conduct itself. At its core is the notion that we must have ‘informed consent’. However if we include a broader group within the MRS of data observers of social media, this tenant is irrelevant. I do wonder if the MRS needs to sit down with a ‘tabula rasa’ (see the benefit of doing of Latin?) and redesign a new code of conduct fit for the 21st century.

In contrast, at least ESOMAR seems to get it. They recognise they need to change and are in the process of reforming their constitution to become a more inclusive organisation where not just pure researchers are involved. The MRS (should it decide to continue to exist) needs to be an organisation that represents all types of business that analyse ‘big data’ and be forward looking and actively seek to promote an broader church of data analysts.

If it does not, which I fear from the tone of the MRS discussion document, it seriously risks splintering the industry into those who wish to remain with the ‘old ways’ and those in favour of reform. I am serious here. I fear a schism of this kind is all too likely. If guidelines were enforced along the lines of the discussion document it is almost certain that many agencies would be forced to leave the MRS.

I believe this would be the worst case scenario for all. Please MRS, come to your senses and recognise the seriousness of this situation. We need an industry body that not only represents our industry but is also forward-looking and pragmatic.