This billboard sits over a taco truck I like, so I see it frequently:
The text says “In our communities, Kaiser Permanente members are 33% less likely to experience premature death due to heart disease.*”, with the small-text directing one to a url.
The most naive (and presumably intended) interpretation is, of course, that being a Kaiser Permanente member provides access to better care, causing 33% lower chance of death due to heart disease.
Now, I’d expect most people reading this to immediately think something like “selection effects!”—i.e. what the billboard really tells us is that Kaiser Permanente has managed to select healthier-than-typical members. And indeed, that was my immediate thought.
… but then I noticed that the “selection effects” interpretation is also a trap for the unwary. After all, this is a number on a billboard. Number. Billboard. The overriding rule for numbers on billboards is that they are bullshit. The literal semantics of “Kaiser Permanente members are 33% less likely to experience premature death due to heart disease” just don’t have all that much to do at all with the rate at which various people die of heart disease.
What it does tell us is that someone at Kaiser Permanente thought it would be advantageous to claim, to people seeing this billboard, that Kaiser Permanente membership reduces death from heart disease by 33%.
… and that raises a very different set of questions! Who, exactly, is this billboard advertising to? The phrase “for all that is you” suggests that it’s advertising to prospective members, as opposed to e.g. doctors or hospital admins or politicians or investors or Kaiser’s own employees. (There is a skyscraper full of Kaiser’s employees within view of this billboard.) Which would suggest that somebody at Kaiser thinks consumers make a nontrivial choice between Kaiser and alternatives sometimes, and that there’s value to be had in influencing that choice.
… though perhaps that thinking is also a trap, and in fact the sign is just a result of corporate stupidity. I don’t know.
the actual trap is that it caught your attention, you posted about it online and now more people know and think about Kaiser Permanente than before and according to whoever was in charge of making this billboard, that’s a success metric they can leverage for a promotion.
What it does tell us is that someone at Kaiser Permanente thought it would be advantageous to claim, to people seeing this billboard, that Kaiser Permanente membership reduces death from heart disease by 33%.
Is that what is does tell us? The sign doesn’t make the claim you suggest—it doesn’t claim it’s reducing the deaths from heart disease, it states it’s 33% less likely to be “premature”—which is probably a weaselly term here. But it clearly is not making any claims about reducing deaths from heart disease.
You seem to be projecting the conclusion that the claim/expected interpretation is that membership reduces the deaths by 33%. But I don’t know how you’re concluding that the marketing team thought that would be the general interpretation by those seeing the sign.
While I would not be incline to take an billboard ad at face value, a more reasonable take seems to me that claiming that even with heard disease KP’s members are less likely to die earlier than expect that other with other healthcare providers. That may be a provable and true claim or it might be more “puffing” and everyone will play with just how “premature” is going to be measured.
Whether or not it’s corporate stupidity, I think that might be a separate question but understanding exactly what results such an ad is supposed to be producing will matter a lot here. Plus, there is the old adage about no one every going bankrupt underestimating the intelligence of the American consumer—and I suspect that might go double in the case of medical/healthcare consumption.
“Kaiser Permanente members are younger and healthier, and thus consume fewer healthcare resources on average, which allows us to pass the savings on to you.”
This billboard sits over a taco truck I like, so I see it frequently:
The text says “In our communities, Kaiser Permanente members are 33% less likely to experience premature death due to heart disease.*”, with the small-text directing one to a url.
The most naive (and presumably intended) interpretation is, of course, that being a Kaiser Permanente member provides access to better care, causing 33% lower chance of death due to heart disease.
Now, I’d expect most people reading this to immediately think something like “selection effects!”—i.e. what the billboard really tells us is that Kaiser Permanente has managed to select healthier-than-typical members. And indeed, that was my immediate thought.
… but then I noticed that the “selection effects” interpretation is also a trap for the unwary. After all, this is a number on a billboard. Number. Billboard. The overriding rule for numbers on billboards is that they are bullshit. The literal semantics of “Kaiser Permanente members are 33% less likely to experience premature death due to heart disease” just don’t have all that much to do at all with the rate at which various people die of heart disease.
What it does tell us is that someone at Kaiser Permanente thought it would be advantageous to claim, to people seeing this billboard, that Kaiser Permanente membership reduces death from heart disease by 33%.
… and that raises a very different set of questions! Who, exactly, is this billboard advertising to? The phrase “for all that is you” suggests that it’s advertising to prospective members, as opposed to e.g. doctors or hospital admins or politicians or investors or Kaiser’s own employees. (There is a skyscraper full of Kaiser’s employees within view of this billboard.) Which would suggest that somebody at Kaiser thinks consumers make a nontrivial choice between Kaiser and alternatives sometimes, and that there’s value to be had in influencing that choice.
… though perhaps that thinking is also a trap, and in fact the sign is just a result of corporate stupidity. I don’t know.
the actual trap is that it caught your attention, you posted about it online and now more people know and think about Kaiser Permanente than before and according to whoever was in charge of making this billboard, that’s a success metric they can leverage for a promotion.
Is that what is does tell us? The sign doesn’t make the claim you suggest—it doesn’t claim it’s reducing the deaths from heart disease, it states it’s 33% less likely to be “premature”—which is probably a weaselly term here. But it clearly is not making any claims about reducing deaths from heart disease.
You seem to be projecting the conclusion that the claim/expected interpretation is that membership reduces the deaths by 33%. But I don’t know how you’re concluding that the marketing team thought that would be the general interpretation by those seeing the sign.
While I would not be incline to take an billboard ad at face value, a more reasonable take seems to me that claiming that even with heard disease KP’s members are less likely to die earlier than expect that other with other healthcare providers. That may be a provable and true claim or it might be more “puffing” and everyone will play with just how “premature” is going to be measured.
Whether or not it’s corporate stupidity, I think that might be a separate question but understanding exactly what results such an ad is supposed to be producing will matter a lot here. Plus, there is the old adage about no one every going bankrupt underestimating the intelligence of the American consumer—and I suspect that might go double in the case of medical/healthcare consumption.
“Kaiser Permanente members are younger and healthier, and thus consume fewer healthcare resources on average, which allows us to pass the savings on to you.”