You’ve heard it before: “Correlation does NOT equal causation.” Just because it follows, doesn’t mean it connects. The same can be true in public relations and marketing. And, if we fail to respect this, we can easily confuse our audience and delude ourselves.
How easily can this get out of hand? Consider the following correlations courtesy of the site, “spurious correlations”:
Using data from the U.S. Office of Management and the Centers For Disease Control, you can create a graph that “shows” the correlation between U.S. investment in STEM and space initiatives and suicides by hanging.
Another popular example of this fallacy compares how much cheese we eat to how many people die tangled up in bedsheets. You guessed it, a nearly identical trend line. The same can be said of comparing the total amount of revenue generated by arcades and computer science doctorates awarded in the United States. Are these pairs related? Not in the slightest. But if you put each pairs’ trend lines on the same graph, they overlay almost completely. If pairs of such obviously unrelated factors can be made to appear related, how much easier could it be for us to fool ourselves – and others – with data that actually may be related.
Don’t let correlation cause a bad connection
By Editorial Team3 min read
You’ve heard it before: “Correlation does NOT equal causation.” Just because it follows, doesn’t mean it connects. The same can be true in public relations and marketing. And, if we fail to respect this, we can easily confuse our audience and delude ourselves.
How easily can this get out of hand? Consider the following correlations courtesy of the site, “spurious correlations”:
Using data from the U.S. Office of Management and the Centers For Disease Control, you can create a graph that “shows” the correlation between U.S. investment in STEM and space initiatives and suicides by hanging.
Another popular example of this fallacy compares how much cheese we eat to how many people die tangled up in bedsheets. You guessed it, a nearly identical trend line. The same can be said of comparing the total amount of revenue generated by arcades and computer science doctorates awarded in the United States. Are these pairs related? Not in the slightest. But if you put each pairs’ trend lines on the same graph, they overlay almost completely. If pairs of such obviously unrelated factors can be made to appear related, how much easier could it be for us to fool ourselves – and others – with data that actually may be related.

The Everything-PR Editorial Team produces reporting, research, and analysis across thirty verticals — communications, reputation, AI visibility, public affairs, media systems, and digital discovery in the answer-engine era. Publishing since 2009.
Other news
See all
Is Search-Result Suppression Legal? What the Terakeet Case Forces the Industry to Answer
The Terakeet investigation prompted an obvious question: is what reputation firms do even legal? The honest answer is that most of it is — and that "legal" was never the line that mattered most. Here is where the lines actually fall.This article reports on a contested area. It is…

The New Gatekeepers — How AI Is Rewriting Power in Public Relations
Artificial intelligence is redefining public relations, with algorithms increasingly shaping information flow. This article examines the implications of this shift, exploring how PR professionals can adapt their strategies to navigate an AI-driven landscape while maintaining authenticity and ethical considerations.

AI Is Now the First Stop in Financial Research. Here's How Engines Decide Which Firms to Cite.
Never Miss a Headline
Daily PR headlines, weekly long-form analysis, and our proprietary research drops — straight to your inbox.
