However…

1. Mashable is really one of the least credible sources for stats info out there. We’ve had to call them out on it in the past here, and just last week we had to call them out yet again on another site for posting downright false or misleading stats. For example, their headline is blatantly a false claim without a qualifier saying only in the last month and only the body wash product line, or only from campaign start to finish and not overall — but of course that makes for a better hyped up story that will continue to spread without people bothering to really look at the news, think critically, and ask the right questions. Not saying it’s all wrong in this case, but that to make a point, it’s better to point people directly to something more credible.

2. Be cautious before making assumptions regarding the updated info posted. Always think critically rather than just repeating numbers. For example….

- A chart compares stats from February to and July, with two 4-week periods. An increase since launch time doesn’t mean that much as far as the social side of the campaign goes and whether or not it was successful on the sales front. It doesn’t tell us if the ads were effective, or the later buzz and more social aspects were. That would be important to differentiate before anyone claims a social media campaign is already a success (although I hope for the company’s sake that it was).

- For the Red Zone line specifically, you have two sets of data presented. One showing sales down year-over-year, and one showing an increase (but only from the start of the campaign). So the real question isn’t whether sales are temporarily increased due to the hype of the campaign itself, but whether there’s an actual increase year-over-year. Is that still down as of July? I guess we’ll have to wait and see, but that’s also important information to have before evaluating the success of something. An increase is great… but will it last, and is it enough to counteract what other stats show as sluggish sales (versus only enough to make a dent)?

- The stats are admittedly limited, leaving out the country’s largest retailer, Walmart (which as of 2009 apparently accounted for an 11%+ retail market share in the US) — that’s pretty significant, and for the single-digit increases mentioned knowing that information would be important before making any conclusions.

- Stats, as they often are, seemed to be laid out in a way to intentionally make things look good. For example, it’s easier to get people to spread news about 100+% increases in the last month for specific lines than it is to talk about much more modest numbers for the brand, all things advertised, or the long-term increases (or lack thereof). And that’s what really matters in determining the overall success of most campaigns — quick and temporary surge versus actual brand awareness that lasts, grows, and overcomes any past sales problems.

In no way am I saying that sales aren’t up or that the campaign isn’t successful. As I already said, I hope it is. I loved the campaign. But it’s important to look at the stats for what they are — just illustration and grounds for commentary (why we linked to a blog post discussing it rather than touting numbers as hard fact originally) or transparent figures that tell the whole story? Sadly the latter is rare, so it comes down to each one of us being able to think critically for ourselves.

Thanks for passing along the updates related to the post we cited. Appreciate it.

Yes, it’s a brilliant campaign. Yes, we’ve all bent over backwards to praise how fun and innovative it is. Yes, we love it and talk about it.

But do we go out and buy the product being advertised? No. So the campaign’s not succeeded.