In my blog, “Five Mar­ket­ing Pet Peeves” I men­tion that it is impor­tant for mar­keters to be dynamic, to always adjust. Mar­garet R. McDow­ell dis­cusses the same prin­ci­ples of adjust­ing and dynamic pre­dic­tions in her arti­cle about famous sta­tis­ti­cian Nate Sil­ver.

The idea that mar­keters, sta­tis­ti­cians, and ana­lysts (or any­one else) would adjust their pre­dic­tions after the fact that they’ve made them irks some peo­ple. These peo­ple think that, by their nature, pre­dic­tions should be sta­tic. On the con­trary, Nate Sil­ver believes peo­ple should adjust their pre­dic­tions as more data flows in. Mar­keters must adopt Silver’s method of adjust­ing pre­dic­tions in order to ratio­nally and dynam­i­cally antic­i­pate con­sumers’ wants.

Mar­keters have access to a wealth of data—data that is con­stantly updated. They should use this data in its most cur­rent (and thus most accu­rate) state. The ques­tion, accord­ing to McDow­ell, is why “wouldn’t every­one uti­lize new and dynamic empir­i­cal evi­dence”? There is no rea­son­able answer. Mar­keters should adjust pre­dic­tions on an ongo­ing basis accord­ing to the lat­est data and trends.