‘Surveys’ or ‘serveys?’

“Surveys” once had a noble and scientific purpose but no thanks to some profit-oriented operators, the art or the science has been tarnished with accusations of being manipulated, client oriented or just plain “politically motivated” to favor those who commission such works. The only thing that prevents the lynching or ban on surveys is due largely to its commercial application and guidance it provides for public and private policy determination.

We cannot deny the fact that “surveys,” when done with integrity, are a safe and unemotional means of measuring public sentiments or state of mind on certain issues. So, to paraphrase the song: how do we solve a dilemma called “surveys?” Is there enough reason to regulate or legislate stricter measures that would promote the integrity and purpose of surveys? Should surveys be limited to non-political matters, meaning no to political popularity surveys? Or should quasi-judicial bodies such as the Commission on Elections get involved in the matter?

To prevent people from going to extremes, let’s address the general concerns about surveys. First and foremost concern is the lack of transparency as to who is commissioning the survey, to what purpose the survey is being done, the specific location or coverage of the survey and the metrics and questions and the recency or date of release of results and the statements made relative to the surveys.

When survey companies release their results, they do not often state on record who commissioned the survey and why. Requiring survey firms to disclose who commissioned a survey and why is the first step to transparency for both the survey firm and the client. Transparency will dictate professionalism and accountability on the purpose and conduct as well as the outcome of the survey. People may be dismissive of the “need” to state the purpose of the survey, but doing so would establish whether the results will be used for publicity, affirmation or manipulation. Purpose also determines the content, design and conduct of the survey. The “right” questions will almost always get you the “right answers.”

Short of addresses, giving the locality/area where surveys are being conducted also helps to determine if a survey is skewed or skewered, as in pre-selected localities that are either pro or anti relative to a set of questions or as designed by the survey form. Let’s bear in mind that one of the common comments about surveys made by people, particularly the stayat-home moms and senior citizens, is that never once have they been subject of or interviewed for a survey.

In addition to all the above, two things that have raised eyebrows involve delays in the release of survey results, given their limited or small sample of population and how results are worded and shared with the media intentionally. Given how some surveys are time sensitive or dependent on prevailing circumstance, the assumption is that survey results would be given to clients as soon as possible. In this day and age when questionnaires and forms are produced and processed by computers and programs, tabulating 1,200 to 1,600 survey forms ought to be done in a matter of hours and not several weeks. This is where the issue of “questionable timing” keeps coming up and casts doubts on surveys and survey firms.

The other thing that I, as a media practitioner, wonder about is why the survey results are being fed to the media by the survey companies. The first and generally only party that should get a copy of survey results would be the client, company or person who commissioned the survey to be done.

In my opinion, survey firms should be limited to conducting surveys for clients but should get out of the business of announcing and pronouncing winners or leaders in surveys because that, in effect, influences or manipulates public opinion or sentiment. The survey firms no longer become impartial or independent but actually attach their own reputation and public image to a paying customer once they make such announcements. The current practice of releasing political survey results, whether commissioned or pro bono, directly to the media already crosses over to publicity, marketing and public relations. There was a time when survey firms would refuse to give members of media results of certain surveys and would tell us to go their client. Nowadays, they won’t tell us who the client is, but they happily give us survey results, analysis or summaries that are skewed in favor of an obvious patron or client!

Survey firms are judged on the science, accuracy and integrity of their work and not on the noise they make. It may be tradition among survey firms to take the initiative of conducting surveys on public issues or concern, but that benefits public policy or the public in general. When survey firms start handing out statistical trophies to any political candidate, it benefits the candidate but not the public. The work and reputation of survey firms are built and based on trust. It is based on statistical and mathematical science and research methods. Ironically, if you study the survey results and forecasts in the last 20 years, a number of surveys were farthest from the truth and final outcome. That’s because people respond based on current situations and concerns that can change tomorrow or next week. So, Math and Stats are not science enough.

Truth be told, there is now a growing movement among media outfits to screen or “cancel” groups doing surveys that have popped up overnight just like mushrooms on a dung heap or those that have crossed traditional boundaries and have been negligent in preserving their integrity. It would be a sad day when such a vital business tool as “surveys” and survey firms end up sidelined or abandoned because those responsible for this small and exclusive sector failed to protect themselves from themselves by providing “Serveys” instead of “Surveys.”

* * *