Problem: Over time, the same term can become more or less polarizing. However, it’s difficult to gauge and measure this over time.
Solution: Two days ago, the Financial Times published “Statistics, lies, and the virus: Tim Harford’s five lessons from a pandemic” where he described the fact that “everything can be polarised.” This business would focus on building a search engine where politicians, executives, or individuals can search a term and discover just how polarizing, or not polarizing, it is. This service could be sold to paying subscribers and would eventually help to better find and address the needs of various target markets.
To describe this idea more, I’ll refer to Tim Harford’s writing (emphasis mine):
Reporting on the numbers behind the Brexit referendum, the vote on Scottish independence, several general elections and the rise of Donald Trump, there was poison in the air: many claims were made in bad faith, indifferent to the truth or even embracing the most palpable lies in an effort to divert attention from the issues. Fact-checking in an environment where people didn’t care about the facts, only whether their side was winning, was a thankless experience.
For a while, one of the consolations of doing data-driven journalism during the pandemic was that it felt blessedly free of such political tribalism. People were eager to hear the facts after all; the truth mattered; data and expertise were seen to be helpful. The virus, after all, could not be distracted by a lie on a bus.
That did not last. America polarised quickly, with mask-wearing becoming a badge of political identity — and more generally the Democrats seeking to underline the threat posed by the virus, with Republicans following President Trump in dismissing it as overblown.
The prominent infectious-disease expert Anthony Fauci does not strike me as a partisan figure — but the US electorate thinks otherwise. He is trusted by 32 per cent of Republicans and 78 per cent of Democrats.
The strangest illustration comes from the Twitter account of the Republican politician Herman Cain, which late in August tweeted: “It looks like the virus is not as deadly as the mainstream media first made it out to be.” Cain, sadly, died of Covid-19 in July — but it seems that political polarisation is a force stronger than death.
Not every issue is politically polarised, but when something is dragged into the political arena, partisans often prioritise tribal belonging over considerations of truth. One can see this clearly, for example, in the way that highly educated Republicans and Democrats are further apart on the risks of climate change than less-educated Republicans and Democrats.
Rather than bringing some kind of consensus, more years of education simply seem to provide people with the cognitive tools they require to reach the politically convenient conclusion. From climate change to gun control to certain vaccines, there are questions for which the answer is not a matter of evidence but a matter of group identity.
In this context, the strategy that the tobacco industry pioneered in the 1950s is especially powerful. Emphasise uncertainty, expert disagreement and doubt and you will find a willing audience. If nobody really knows the truth, then people can believe whatever they want.
I find the writings of Harford to be fascinating, and often inspiring for ideas and potential businesses. This business would play into the marketing industry which, as I’ve written about before, is a multi-billion dollar market.
Monetization: Selling the information on the polarization of search terms.
Contributed by: Michael Bervell (Billion Dollar Startup Ideas)