Skip to main content

When is 99% less than 99%?

Asking when 99% is less than 99% sounds like a riddle - but it's not. I recently heard a Sky Mobile radio advert in which they claimed 99% UK coverage. In the 'small print' words at the end, they said this meant they covered 99% of the population.

I don't know about you, but unless I'd heard that proviso, I would have assumed that 99% coverage meant you could connect to their service in 99% of UK locations - I expected the figure to be based on area of coverage, rather than population.

It might seem like this is splitting hairs, but it really isn't.

Let's just imagine an unlikely version of the UK where 99% of the population lived in London (this is, after all, what most advertising people think). Having 99% coverage by Sky's definition would mean that you could only use your mobile phone in 0.65% of the country. The whole point of a mobile is to be able to use in on the move, not just at your home location.

Of course, the real UK is not like my imagined version. Yet the country has far more open space than many assume. Only around 10% of the country is built up. This means you could make Sky's claim and still be inaccessible in much of the other 90% of the country. 

In saying this, I'm not just getting at Sky - I'm sure other mobile providers make similar dodgy claims. From my own personal experience travelling around the country (using O2, not Sky), quite often I can't get 4G and there are plenty of places still with no signal. 

If you want to use statistics in your advertising, it's a good idea to use numbers that mean what people will assume they mean. Otherwise, it's more than a touch deceptive.

I have contacted Sky to ask about how they came up with the 99% figure, but as yet have had no reply.

Image by Resume Genius from Unsplash

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Labels:

Comments

  1. Tim21 February 2024 at 08:09

    Hi Brian, Unfortunately this use of statistics is not restricted to UK mobile providers. It's been the case in New Zealand for many years where the main mobile providers have claimed they provide coverage to where approximately 98% of New Zealanders work and live.
    NZ has about 5.1 million people in a country slightly larger than the UK. Around 30% live in Auckland. So there are large, albeit sparsely populated, areas with little or no coverage.
    The coverage map from One NZ (formerly Vodafone NZ) shows the problem:
    www.one.nz/network/coverage
    Please keep up the good work calling out poor use of statistics.
    Tim

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex
114 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
24 comments
Read more

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope
22 comments
Read more