|
?:reviewBody
|
-
In mid-December 2018, a graphic design company conducted a survey asking respondents in the U.S. and U.K. how they might change the conceptualization of Santa Claus to modernize his image. Among the various responses were such suggestions as dressing Santa in skinny jeans and giving him an Amazon Prime membership. Among the survey questions, the GraphicSprings design company included one about whether Saint Nick should be a man, a woman, or gender neutral. Many headlines reporting on the survey focused on respondents' expressing their preference for a gender-neutral or female Santa Claus, a scrutiny perhaps not surprising in the age of social media flame wars. What wasn't discussed, however, was an aspect of the story that was key, albeit boring: the survey's methodology. GraphicSprings described their survey methodology as follows: GraphicSprings didn't explain who made the selection of suggestions that were included in the larger survey, or why they were chosen. Furthermore, many of the news stories about the survey didn't review the survey or note that the questions presented to participants were leading ones. For example, survey-takers were asked If you could 'rebrand' Santa for modern society, what gender would he be? Participants were provided three answers from which they could choose -- male, female or gender-neutral: Writing for the Australian popular culture and news site Junkee, journalist Joseph Earp described the survey as a savvy but cruel tour de force in marketing that succeeded in raising GraphicSprings' media profile: In other words, the results of a viral survey designed by a company that specializes in making business cards and flyers probably was not intended to accurately measure public opinion.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}