This article and subsequent statistics are so wrong that I have to call into question all statistics Hubspot has ever published. In fact I may even cancel my subscription. I thought you folks knew what you were talking about. 
 
 
 
I am involved with the Christian community on facebook. I know of three or four facebook fan pages and groups that are specifically Christian/Religious in nature and the all have 1.5 million to over two million members. There are countless Christian/religious groups with membership from 2000 to 16,000 or more. I started a Christian group "Christians That Love The Lord" and in four months it has over 6000 members. Whoever did this research is making stuff up. What ever method used to get this figure is missing from this article which further casts a shadow of overall doubt on your ill conceived and irresponsible reporting. You claim this is a science. Science can prove facts in more than one way. Perhaps you'd like to prove this in some other open methodology. Becasue Hubspot you and your science are VERY wrong about Religious groups/pages being the "Least Liked". Start a real life tour of the christian community at: http://www.facebook.com/?sk=2361831622#!/group.php?gid=331035615010

@Troy 
 
Thanks for your comment! I just want to clarify the graph above. For our sample the average Facebook Fan Page has 600 fans. The categories above are shown below the average. This means that the "activity" category above is the least popular and that Religious organizations, barely made the list with only a few less fans than average. So basically Religious organization are the most popular category that had below the average number of fans.  
 
I hope this makes the data clearer. Please let us know if you have any other questions!  
 
Thank you, 
Kipp

Where do you get your data. What formular is used to derive the base line of 600 members per page? 
 
 
 
I still disagree from a first had perspective.

As someone who's Medical Services category ranks near the bottom, I feel like I should be enraged by your findings.  
 
But, I'm not.  
 
Thanks, as always, for the stellar work that you all do at Hubspot.

@Troy 
 
Our data is from our Facebook Grader Application. Our data set is 500,000 pages.  
 
I will let Dan, who wrote the post, chime in with any other methodology details.  
 
Thank you for questioning our data it helps to keep us improving and thinking.  
 
Thank you! 
Kipp

Nice. Is there any way you could post the other side of the chart? the other 32 categories above average? (perhaps from the top down). That would give a nice perspective.

Luis, 
 
We posted it last week. here is the link: http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6087/The-Most-Liked-Types-of-Facebook-Pages-Infographic.aspx

The key thing to remember when comparing stats like these to your personal experience is the difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence.  
As an example, I know of a few very rich people who drink milk, could I then expect that milk drinkers are more wealthy on average across a large sample or population?

Thanks for this information. I am surprised that Religion is the least like facebook page. Anyways thanks Hubspot for this findings.

I have to admit, the chart isn't clear on what the y-axis means. Thanks for your clarification Kipp!

@ Kipp & Troy: 
 
Is it possibly that there are SO MANY religious pages, some with a very high number of fans, and some with a very low number of fans- the the average number of fans for religious sites is skewed?  
 
For example, if there were only 6 pages on Facebook that were about Religion (just to make this small enough to do the math). 
 
Page 1 has 5,000 fans 
Page 2 has 1,000 fans 
Page 3 has 500 fans 
Page 4 has 4 fans 
Page 5 has 5 fans 
and Page 6 has 2 fans 
 
Combined, these pages have 6,511 fans. However, since some are new and don't have a large number of fans, it reduces the average number of fans on Religious pages to 1,085. 
 
Maybe there's only two pages on Facebook about Real Estate.  
 
Page 1 has 5,000 fans 
Page 2 has 100 fans 
 
Combined these pages only have 5,100 fans (less than the 6,511 total fans of the Religious pages). 
 
But because there are fewer pages, the average number of fans for a Real Estate page is higher (2,550) than the average number of fans on Religious pages (1,085) even though there are overall, more fan of Religious pages than Real Estate pages. 
 
I guess the way to determine this would be to see how many pages of each type we are comparing (apples to apples?) and what math was used? 
 
Just a thought.

I agree with Angie -- it's possible that averages for these categories aren't the best measure, particularly without an n value represented. Standard Deviation would help, too.

I agree - I've rated the ads on the sidebar and I always label religious ads OFFENSIVE!

Nice graph, it's really interesting to see these many categories of Facebook Pages. It also shows that Facebook has become really big.

In order to help clear up the issue you might look at the median for a group as well as the average. If the two numbers are close, you know it's a fairly even distribution and is probably a fairly accurate measure. If the median is significantly higher or lower than the average, you can tell that the population is actually skewed one way or the other.  
 
So in the religious organization example, if there are a whole lot with only 1 or 2 fans that are throwing off the curve your median would be lower than the average due to the number of samples below the average. 
 
@Troy, please think through your response before hitting send next time. It's responses like that that give Christians a bad name. You shouldn't attack the writer, just point out your disagreements and let the facts speak for themselves. "A soft answer turns away wrath." The writer showed much more skill and tact than you did in his response. Nice job.

Well, if you're religious and don't agree with the data, just declare it false and substitute your own reality. Seems like I've seen this before.

This has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with more junk "science" and amateurs playing statistical weekend warrior. 
 
Averages, medians and standard deviations (the way that most people think about them) only apply to NORMAL DISTRIBUTIONS. Participation rates in social media follow POWER LAW DISTRIBUTIONS. This entire exercise is bogus and misleading.  
 
When you say the word "average" people colloquially accept it as something similar, if not identical, to a median: that is to say, half of the observations lie above the median and half below. In a power law distribution, this is as far from the case as you can be. 
 
I wrote a blog article titled "Statistics: I Do Not Think it Means What You Think It Means" but now I feel a sequel coming about power law distributions. 
 
STOP THE MADNESS!

I agree. It's reallt tiresome to see all these bar and pet lovers challenging the data. 
 
 
 
But you're on the right track about statistics. I've heard that they can be like a bikini: They reveal a lot, but cover what's most important.

Just to clarify Activity and Real Estate are the LEAST popular pages. 
 
Religion and Pets are the most popular of the Least popular group. 
 
And I think Angie has hit the nail on the head. These stats are very misleading when there are TONS of Realtors who are dying for any kind of marketing edge and are pushing their social media gurus to "build them a FaceBook Page now!" without any real plan on how to use/maintain/grow their FB page. 
And hence there are a lot of vacant Real Estate facebook pages with a limited number of "likes" since their pages are so useless. 

Sounds like a great opportunity for Social Media in Business experts! Which I think is the biggest point of this post regardless of the opinions on the validity of the statistics. Here is the quick snapshot. Now, quit debating and use it to research who needs the help and then go make some money! Or sit here like 99% of the population and continue the pointless debate while the other 1% acts on it. 
 
"there are TONS of Realtors who are dying for any kind of marketing edge and are pushing their social media gurus to "build them a FaceBook Page now!" without any real plan on how to use/maintain/grow their FB page.  
And hence there are a lot of vacant Real Estate facebook pages with a limited number of "likes" since their pages are so useless. "

Thanks for the post and presenting this data. It certainly provides an interesting, top-level glimpse at where people are congregating.  
 
What is missing from the conversation here in the comments section is the fact that it never was presented as a measurement of success. Yet, many people have interpreted it that way. This is merely a set of empirical data that can be interpreted a number of different ways. For example, it looks like pharma companies came in with an average of about 550-575 fans. Would anyone legitimately expect a pharmaceutical company to have the same fan base as movies--the leading type (from the previous post)? The point is: each industry should be judge in isolation.  
 
What this does not evaluate is how long the group has been established, what purpose it intends to serve, what benchmark for success has been determined and how active the group itself is. These are all critical factors in evaluating success in social media. 
 
As far as I can tell, Hubspot has not presented this as data that should be used as a metric for success, just a starting point for the discussion.

@Chris - my point was that using an average is misleading at best. You're starting a discussion based on a (potentially) false premise to begin with. It's like comparing baseball hitters by the number of at-bats they have. It's a "starting point of a discussion" but the discussion is completely meaningless because at-bats measure the team's overall prowess, not the individual's. And what's worse, they probably even correlate.

@ Jon My comment wasn't directed at you--apologies if it came across that way. I'm not sure I follow the baseball analogy above. At-bats give no indication of success--just how many times you stepped to the plate. Perhaps that's what you are driving it? 
 
In any event, I think largely we agree. My point is that these numbers do not indicate success or failure, they are just numbers. Many have tried to use them as the benchmark for success--which in my opinion is dangerous. There are several other factors that would need to go into determining the relative success or failure of social media engagement.

No @Jon, using averages is a quick and easy way to throw a huge amount of data onto a quick chart to generate some discussion and lead some people who actually have initiative to go out there and look at the data themselves to discover how they can profit by helping out those who need it.

Interesting posts

@Chris - Yes, I think we are mostly saying the same thing.  
 
That was EXACTLY my point with the baseball analogy. I see lots of marketing decisions made based on numbers that "do not mean what you think they mean." When you calculate the average of a normally distributed data set, it means something very different from the average of a power law distributed population. 
 
By the way, I love @Cowboy53's quote.

@Don - Shooting someone between the eyes is a quick and easy way to end an argument, but it doesn't make it right. In fact, quick and easy quite often is the exact wrong thing to do.  
 
I did write a more detailed response here for those who care: "Average: I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means."

This is not a website about statistics. I'm sure you have a great post about analyzing data. The point is, this is a website devoted to helping you improve your website and marketing. This post provides a quick summary of some valuable data and spurs people on to further research of said data. Endless posts about the validity of the chart do not add to the conversation. The point was brought up early on by Angie that there may be other ways of better analyzing the data. Point taken. 
 
Rather than portraying Hubspot as "bogus and misleading" perhaps you could have just pointed out the potential ways of improving on their data analysis and positioned yourself as an expert willing to help people interpret their Marketing Data. Instead you (along with several others) come across as just another critic chastising the world without adding any value.

@Don - I am a Certified Inbound Marketing professional (Honors Distinction) and have commented lovingly on dozens of other Hubspot posts. I retweet them all the time, sing their praises often, and interviewed Brian Halligan for my upcoming book. I am a huge fan of Hubspot, but nobody (or company) is perfect.  
 
I said that, in this particular case, using an average is "bogus and misleading." I did not say that Hubspot was. And I did add value by writing a blog post to fully explain my thoughts and warn people how they can avoid these mistakes. 
 
In one comment, you have:  
1) Jumped to a false conclusion about me 
2) Misquoted me twice 
3) Mis-characterized my position 
4) Engaged in two ad-hominem attacks 
 
Sorry to pollute the comments further, but I couldn't let that stand. 
 
Now if you'll excuse me, I must go now attend Hubspot's "Top 5 SEO Practices for 2011" webinar. I expect it will be up to their usual high standards.

Findings???? FINDINGS???? These are more like SCRATCHINGS. Tissue thin “findings” are presented by self-proclaimed “experts”, then tweeted and retweeted (160 times at last count in this case) and suddenly it is gospel! And this is all because the folks with the REAL solid data refuse to release it to the people who need it most: their customers. (I’ve written about this “Basic Questions Facebook Must Answer”) More in depth comments here http://www.camares.com/blog/classic-hubspot-delivers-mushy-metrics-as-gospel

Carry on Don Quixote. I see another windmill on the horizon.

Pet's is number 2, why does that not surprise me

If you compare the two lists (least favorite and favorite), I think you would find that the two lists are a direct reflection of our affluent-oriented, personality-dominated society. Not that there's anything wrong with that. However, religion always has been a polarizing topic. I don't find either list surprising at all, but there is a lot of good info there. It's kind of like Mashable's top 10 twitter trends every week--no surprises, but good info to have. Sometimes I wish Christians would become more pro-active about finding the abundance mentality in things like this instead of the defensive scarcity mentality that seems to be so prevalent in some of their circles.

I looked up this data after today's webinar. Any big surprises here? Not really. But there are some things that cause me to say, "Hmmm - that's interesting. I wonder why..." Then it's my job to take my category of interest to the next level.  
 
Yes, averages are almost always one of the 1st statistics someone compiles when attempting to study anything. Sometimes you end up throwing out the outliers. Sometimes the outliers provide the most useful pieces of information. 
 
Unless I contract with HubSpot for a detailed report, I don't expect them to give me all the answers. But I do appreciate the head start they've given me.