Ok, this is supposed to be a sub, where common myths have no place, alas that's not the case. My only gripe is that someone will read this shit and starts to quote / believe it as it has some merit.
Can you give a source to this 56% failure rates? The only one i could find is based on data from 2009, from a small data-recovery company in Russia.
Worst case - you mean Backblaze. This company created a lot of pseudo-specialists when it comes to HDD reliability. We get it - its easy to read 8-bar graphs and it gives you a feeling like you know the entire industry. But Backblaze shouldn't be an argument when you try to compare failure rates:
Why:
The "reliability" report is just a marketing campaign from Backblaze. Why no one else in the industry "thought" of doing it - mostly, because the data is useless (as chances are you won't have even remotely close setup or sourcing), especially to end-users at home thinking about getting a new drive.
In short - HDDs fail for a lot of reasons. Its rarely that easy to say - that model is really bad (unless there's a bad batch) or even say a company is bad. Negative bias is dangerous when it comes to consumer-grade hardware and the best people can do is to check consumer reviews from a few different sources (amazon, new egg etc) before getting a particular model.