17 November 2014

Scientists: know your audience!

Scientific organizations, for the most part, talk about important developments in science with other scientists.  These organizations can expect certain things from their audience: an exceptionally high level of science literacy, an inherent enthusiasm for the subject matter, and even a desire to contribute personally and professionally to the work. The burden is on this educated and emotionally invested audience to comprehend the dense, complex material.

Of course, every now and then scientists will predict exactly where a comet will be ten years into the future, design and launch a spaceship to meet it there, snare it with a grappling hook, conduct a bunch of experiments on it, and send the results back via a solar-powered radio.  In short, they will do the things that inspire millions of people to get more involved with science and understand why it's so important.

These opportunities are exceptionally rare.  Science is a methodical, incremental, conservative process.  But science - and scientific organizations - increasingly depend on the patronage and support from the rest of us. So when scientists pull off a "once-in-a-lifetime" achievement, they can't let anything get in the way of telling the story of science.

And this got in the way of telling the story.


This is Dr. Matt Taylor, one of the brilliant scientists who led the project, at the mission press conference.  And yes, he's wearing a shirt that looks like a perverted unicorn barfed on it. And yes, he called this project "the sexiest mission there's ever been" and joked about the comet, "she's sexy, but I never said she was easy."

So people who don't follow science closely expect to hear this amazing story, and instead they see a guy who looks and sounds like he went into astrophysics because he thought it would help him score with the ladies.  And that's what they remember, at least for now.

To get more professional perspective, I reached out to an old friend who is an expert in communications - and interestingly enough, men's fashion - Chris Hogan of Off the Cuff.  Chris lives and works in Washington DC and still remembers when President Obama wore a white tie to his inaugural ball when he shouldn't have.  He also remembers when the President wore a tan suit to a press conference to talk about a number of global crises and how the media ignored his comments on Syria because they were struck by how casual his clothes were.

"Anytime your message is really important, you don't want anything to distract from that," Chris said. "What you wear should be forgettable, in a good way."  If you want to inject some of your personality as a scientist in your dress, Chris likes Neil deGrasse Tyson's style with his cosmos-inspired ties or vests.   I asked him what he'd wear if giving this press conference, and he said "some kind of neutral blazer, an open-collar dress shirt - unless you're known for those ties like Neil deGrasse Tyson has.  Neutral, authoritative, not stuffy - look like a responsible person."

When the audience isn't the same 300 people you always talk with, the rules are different.  And here's the other thing - when Dr. Taylor made his faux pas, he wasn't just distracting the audience from the story scientists wanted to tell.  He was telling an all-too familiar story many scientists would rather not share.

Science, like many other fields, has a problem with sexism.  Sometimes it's people who make clueless wardrobe choices and make stupid remarks in unusual, uncomfortable situations - like Dr. Taylor, who publicly and tearfully apologized.   Sometimes it's much worse. Often, those problems are institutional.  And too often, women feel like have no place to turn.

And of course, the public discourse has brought out the worst in some people. Mostly anonymous and all pathetic "men's rights activists" have engaged in their usual hypocrisy - women need to "lighten up" about a man's comments or insults or jokes, but a few tweets' worth of criticism from women constitutes a "lynch mob" of "feminist bullies" that deserve death threats and constant streams of abuse.  

I don't think anyone at ESA - Dr. Taylor included - ever wanted this.  But speaking to an audience beyond your peers requires a higher level of awareness and scrutiny.  It means the burden is on you to understand more about how your messages - verbal and otherwise - will be received.  

And when the stakes are high, it means you should hire a professional. It means you should know as much about your audience as possible - like if there are cultural cues or buzzwords that mean one thing to you and something different to them.  It means you should develop an actual strategy about how you will reach your audience.  It means you should build messages and test them to see if they resonate with a sample of your audience.  It means you should build relationships with the most influential members of your audience to make sure those messages are seen as credible and valid. It means you should test to see if your messages have changed people's opinions about you or your work.  

And yes, it probably means you should dress and speak like a grownup, even if the amazing work you do will make you feel like a kid again.

Because yeah, snagging a comet with a grappling hook is absolutely amazing.

08 October 2014

In which the PR guy calls BS on the science people

Welcome to the world of social media metrics
Everyone loves a good "top ten" list, and I'm not just talking about David Letterman.  We like top ten (or top 50, or top 100, or whatever) lists of people - mostly because it gives us an opportunity to judge other people and project our own personal issues and avoid things that really matter.

A few months back, a scientific journal published an article by genomicist Neil Hall about the "K-index," where K stands for "Kardashian." It was a measure of "unearned" popularity among scientists.  It compared a person's number of citations in scientific journals against their number of Twitter followers. 

Seriously.

Some noteworthy scientists  called out some of the article's nonsense. I had something to say about it too.  Science - the magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - responded by publishing not one but two "top scientists on Twitter" lists. 

(By the way, I  note the irony of Neil Hall being better known for his snark on unearned publicity than for his actual work in genomics.)

But here's the thing - the AAAS pieces had some semblance of a "methodology" in developing their lists.  I put methodology in quotation marks because it is full of caveats - including a lack of consensus on the definition of "scientist."

You read that right - Science Magazine's list of "top 50 science stars on Twitter" consists of people who - according to Science Magazine - may or may not be actual scientists.

The thing that bugs me the most about the lists, however, is the reliance on Twitter followers as their anchor metric.   

Social media metrics are daunting as it is, but vanity metrics such as number of likes or followers or even friends don't equate to influence.   For example, more than 150 of my Twitter followers are actually fake.  When Newt Gingrich ran for President, only 8 percent of his million-plus followers were actual people.

If I want a lot of  Twitter followers or Instagram followers, or Facebook friends, or YouTube video views, or blog comments, or blog links, or even search-engine-friendly blog posts,  I can just buy some.

I care much more about the quality of people I engage with on twitter.  I care much more about the kind of information I can get on twitter by following very specific groups of people.  True influence is earned online through candid and effective stakeholder engagement.

So unless you're just publishing click-bait - and I wouldn't be surprised if that's all this was - Don't describe your Twitter list as the "top" anything.  Use these lists as an opportunity to position yourself as a competent curator - someone who recognizes good content and organizes it effectively.  Explain why someone is on it without resorting to numbers anyone can buy.

Saying "this is a list of people I like to follow" also helps people know a little about you. 

24 September 2014

The radical transparency of #farmtopork

There are some obvious "Don'ts" in Public Relations.

Don't tell a reporter you will throw him off a balcony. Don't "reply all."  Don't drop an f-bomb if you're the Pope. Don't be Joe Biden.

And of course, Don't take a dozen online moms on a tour of a "kill floor" at a pork processing plant.

But here's the thing about that last don't: you kind of have to do it if you want people to truly understand where their food comes from.  So that's exactly what the Animal Agriculture Alliance (my client) did.

The Alliance told the true, complete "farm to fork" story, using pork as the example. They invited twelve bloggers from across the country to see first-hand and learn about the entire process - from insemination on a sow farm, to a nursery, to a finishing farm, to processing.   The bloggers met with farmers, with veterinarians, with environmental engineers, with scientists and nutritionists.  No question was off the table.

And it was amazing.  These remarkable women viewed this process with open eyes and open minds.  They have said they found the experience to be educational, engaging, and entertaining. They shared their thoughts online using a hashtag, #farmtopork.

Each of the women have had their own unique perspective, but I noticed one opinion they all share - they all have a much deeper appreciation and respect for farmers and for all the people who bring food to our tables.  They saw first hand the passion and lifelong commitment that farmers bring to their work.  They saw how much sophistication and science is required in agriculture today.  They saw how safety - food safety as well as worker safety - is the top priority.  And they also saw just how nice everyone was.

And so while we can take that last item I mentioned off the list of PR "don'ts", we can probably add one as well.

Don't ever underestimate the ability of online moms to listen, think critically, and make up their own minds - no matter what you have to show them.