Hoofprints are not always zebras. In fact, they are probably never zebras.
Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist, remarked in 2009 that “any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word ‘no’”. It soon became known as Betteridge’s law of headlines: if the writer were confident, they would have made it an assertion.
Horses, Not Zebras
The zebra analogy relates to Occam’s Razor, the principle that when there are multiple explanations for the same thing, the simplest one is usually correct. If you see hoofprints, they are more likely to be evidence of horses than zebras.
So why are LinkedIn and other social media platforms inundated with explanations that openly defy Occam’s Razor?
You have probably seen them, increasingly augmented by AI slop machines:
- It’s not a sales problem. It’s a branding problem.
- It’s not a people problem. It’s a leadership problem.
- It’s not a marketing problem. It’s a messaging problem.
Or some other mangled stylistic negation.
But is it? What evidence supports that conclusion? Or are people simply trying to attach an insight where there is none?
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, through Sherlock Holmes, wrote: “Eliminate the impossible, and what is left, however improbable, must be the truth.” Social media runs on attention, not nuance. Truth often gets in the way of a good story.
When the Map Does Not Match the Territory
What happens when you pull your conclusion from the proverbial?
You get a map that does not correspond to the territory. That leads to one place: trouble.
Most advertising claims can be dismantled through simple questioning.
“We’re better than the rest.”
Well, are you?
Where is the evidence?
When it comes to marketing, communication, sales, accounting, finance and other business functions, every organisation has data that can be harnessed, analysed and used to make assertions about what is happening now. From there, we can form hypotheses about what should be done next to improve or optimise performance.
Unless a social media post begins with “We analysed the data from…”, the claim is often based on a sample size of one, anecdotal evidence or a partial observation.
Once you account for the bias of “we’re trying to sell you something”, the content, distinct from information, becomes another harsh noise in a world where the signal is fading by the day.
Let the Data Lead
Subject matter experts can certainly make claims based on their experience. Whether those claims are relevant to your business or organisation, however, is something only the data can reveal.
Usually, the data points to simple explanations for underperformance. There will always be outliers and fringe cases, but that is precisely why we describe them as such.
When you want to understand where, what, how, when or why something is happening, you need to follow evidence that can be quantified and analysed. Everything else is speculation, and speculation often leads to trouble.
So, are you looking for zebras when you should be focusing on horses?
Betteridge may already have the answer.
I help businesses use data to develop messaging that leads to more business from both new and repeat customers. Let’s have a conversation and learn more about one another.
About the Author
Tom Valcanis is the founder of I Sell Words, a conversion optimisation and email marketing business focused on clear, persuasive communication. He helps business owners articulate what they do, why it matters, and how to say it in a way that builds trust and connection. Tom’s work centres on practical messaging that supports real conversations and real relationships. You can contact Tom by clicking on his name Tom Valcanis