This morning was no different: two inane presenters wittering on about why social media was self-centred, was a drain on the UK economy as we all Facebook on work time, and how we’re all more concerned about being glued to a computer screen or mobile phone than meeting people face to face. And later today John Tate, the BBC’s Head of Policy and Strategy, has suggested that people should not be able to tweet or Facebook during key BBC programmes: ““Interactivity has its place but you don’t want to overdo it – shows like Sherlock and Frozen Planet on the BBC are very intense for the viewer and need people not to be distracted.” The full report of his comments is here

Although I’ve heard these digi-phobic views many times before, they struck home today and rankled because I simply couldn’t disagree more. I’m probably preaching to the converted here because you are reading a blog which you found through a Twitter or Facebook post, but as an illustration, here’s what social media has done for me in the last few weeks:

• Enabled me to say goodbye to a former colleague who’s since passed away
• Kept me in touch with friends and family while away from home by posting photos and stories of travels and travails
• Won two bits of new business for Indigo
• Reunited me with a dear friend after an 18 year gap
• Alerted me to funding opportunities for clients
• Shared some wonderful gossip (I wish I could tell but, well…)
• Introduced me to three people in ‘real life’ that I’ve been talking to online for years and really respect
• Made me laugh and cry – more of the former, thankfully

And so much more, including happily watching Question Time with one eye on my Twitter stream.

At a time when HM Government is thinking about things that should be built into a national happiness index, I’m wondering if we should offer up social media as a key element in the 21st century? And while we’re at it, will someone please tell Auntie?

But the story of the Oakland Athletics baseball team and their manager Billy Beane (played by Pitt), and how they took on the big boys of the game to break a long-standing winning streak record, was fascinating. I know very little about the sport, but that wasn’t the appeal. Instead, it was the fact that they built the success on the pitch – which was then, of course, mirrored off pitch in media coverage, ticket sales and sponsorship deals – on the back of data that appealed to my inner geek.

At Billy Beane’s instigation, an analyst looked at the score histories of all the league players and realised that there were people who were achieving great things but were somewhat under the radar: they looked ungainly, they didn’t have the media appeal, they’d been injured and their return to form had gone unnoticed. Because of this, they were cheap in the transfer market, and so a crack team was assembled on a reasonably small budget. They were effective and boy, were they cost-efficient.

So what, you are asking? Well, I was flying home from a seminar about marketing I’d delivered in the Middle East, and we’d spent much of the time discussing the value of research and data. The collective feeling from many marketers in Muscat and Doha was that there was little point in measuring things like visitor or audience feedback in countries where entry is either free, or very cheap, because bottom line isn’t the key driver (or at least not at the moment – the oil money will run out one day, I’m sure).

They felt that without the tyranny of targets hanging over them, there was no need to measure anything, whereas my argument would always be that you are better to know the true picture, even if the truth hurts. And in any case, as a marketing professional, one shouldn’t be complacent. The desire to find an effective and efficient way to address a situation is a very common attribute amongst marketers, in my experience.

The central premise of Moneyball is that many decisions made in baseball are subjective and so often flawed. I’d argue that the same is true within arts and culture; just as baseball players, managers and coaches were shown to be making massive decisions based on their ‘gut instinct’, too often that happens in our sector also. We need more objectivity, and we have all the information we need to do this.

An empirical approach helped a small team compete with the big boys. Just think what data could do for your organization.

I just can’t promise you Brad Pitt as part of the deal.