This is an interesting article, but probably not written by anyone in research, marketing or advertising, because the introduction is surprising, posed as a postulate when no one shares it: no one believes that consumers are rational in their choices, their trade-offs: brand value, affinity with the brand, the weight of social influence, seduction, psychological representation of oneself through purchases .... Everything comes into play, which is why it is complex to investigate and why there are failures, because there is no miracle recipe. If the questioning process is rational, it will push the interviewee to over-rationalise his answers. Especially since being rational is considered more intelligent, stronger, than being irrational, which is often associated with the idea of fashion victim. We post-rationalise our choices to show (including to ourselves) that we are not fooled, that we are not under the influence, particularly of the famous "manipulative marketing of the masses".

No marketing research or opinion poll result should be taken at face value. The added value of analysis lies in the ability to put things into perspective, to interpret them. We are often victims of the "figure", the "percentage", which is easy to put on the front page and which we think says it all. The simple fact of measuring does not always help us understand. Before, we had to understand in order to know; today, we often know without understanding.

But let me reassure you (or not), politicians are not more rational than consumers. Partisan or dogmatic thinking has nothing to envy to impulse and influence buying.

Nor is society, in the sense of an aggregate of men and women, any more rational. Otherwise, we would stop walking on our heads!