The first is a "it's not a lie because we explain it in the small print" argument. Technically true but practically false.
The latter is just a bare assertion. Got proof? I'd bet not. Which is why you had to say "far, far", hoping that people would just go along with you.
Personally, I'd think that Nielsen's business is to make sure their customers know what's going on. That's not an argument for running the second graph; it's an argument for making a third graph that conveys the correct intuition. Or just to publish a table of numbers.
Personally, I'd think that Nielsen's business is to make sure their customers know what's going on.
In my experience, that is not the case. The information they provide is generally used by middle managers in large companies in internal powerpoint decks with the intent of waging intra-company warfare. The use of the the info is highly political and opinionated, not rational and academic.
So, yeah, it would be preferrable to put out an immaculate chart with perfect proportions, good design, and clear text. But often it's just easier to cram the words in and make it fit. The bottom line is that the intended target of these charts just does not care about these details. They have an agenda of their own, and will use the Nielsen data to advance it. For Nielsen to spend time and money obsessing over these sort of things woud go largely unappreciated.
Is it great? no. Even good? no. Does it meet their customers' standards and needs? Yes.
"For Nielsen to spend time and money obsessing over these sort of things woud go largely unappreciated."
This would be extremely short sighted thinking.
I'm a big beleiver in the art of not doing work that's unnecessary, but the art is in knowing when it matters. When not doing the work directly contradicts your brand's supposed strengths publically that's a problem.
Nielsen's brand is built upon a reputation of high quality and detailed demographic data. This is the basis on which customers buy data from Nielsen and what gives that hypothetical middle manger's powerpoint slide some weight. "This is from Nielsen so we can trust that it's good data not some up-and-to-the-right chart I tortured out of our data."
Events like this damage that brand. The damage may not manifest itself directly in sales up front but long term if the weight of "this is from nielson.." is gone then even in the cynical case where all the customers are clueless Nielsen will lose out to another data provider that has the right reputation.
Why is that bad? They look at a nice, easy to read but disproportionate chart, come up with an idea that helps advance their cause, and work it into their presentation. That is how it's done, and it does not require mathematical rigor or loose ethics.
This is apparently a very offensive line of reason here, judging by the downvotes I've acquired for pointing this out. I find that to be interesting in its own right.
I try to assume ignorance over malice which is why I characterized our hypothetical middle-managers as clueless rather than intentionally using misleading data in my prior comment.
If the case is that they know the data is incorrect/misleading but they use it anyway to advance a cause that sounds like the kind of internal politicking that cripples many larger businesses' ability to make good decisions. So IMO that's worse than just being clueless and I no don't think it's very ethical.
Now maybe you're saying that it's possible to get the right idea from a misleading chart and get some value from it. That's true, but it's also true that you can get the wrong idea from it and make a poor decision.
It's bad even for those customers who want a result, because they will be hoping that the reputation of the firm reprinting the data will cause others to neglect looking into the figures.
Look what happened here: if either RIM or Microsoft were relying on the data to be under-analysed (not saying they were - just an example!) then it would have blown up in their face fairly spectacularly. And Neilsen is a reputable firm!
Try looking up the Mindcraft Windows NT vs. Linux benchmarks also.
Note that you've gone from "far, far better for their customers' needs" to "just as good for their (pointless) purposes" but cheaper. Which is a much weaker argument.
I also think your "nobody cares about the data" argument is weak. But I suspect you know that already, and were just trying to argue your way out of a hole so I won't belabor it.
The latter is just a bare assertion. Got proof? I'd bet not. Which is why you had to say "far, far", hoping that people would just go along with you.
Personally, I'd think that Nielsen's business is to make sure their customers know what's going on. That's not an argument for running the second graph; it's an argument for making a third graph that conveys the correct intuition. Or just to publish a table of numbers.