22 June 2012

#sciencegirlthing: the PR guy's take

FINAL UPDATE AND THEN (MAYBE) I'LL LET THIS GO: It's great that the science/science comms community is stepping up with some references to role models, as the EC asked.  As important as that is, however, it's not the only thing we should do.  We have to remember that the primary audience for this campaign is not scientists, it's girls in the EU ages 7 to 13.  If I were a smart science person, I'd start reaching out to the advertising community - I'm a fan of my pal Liz Gumbinner, though (and this is a plug for my colleagues) the amazing team at Strawberry Frog would probably rock on this.  They focus on cultural movements, and that's exactly what we need here.


UPDATE II: An official word from the EC science comms spokesman:

This is a good move.  I also like this:

I've read that the campaign's target audience is girls age 7 to 13, or at least they held 5 focus groups of girls in that age range for something.  That's younger than the "millenials" category.  Looking at the video though, I still think it misses the mark for the audience.  The ad firm will likely look at its research methods.  Either that or I weep for the future.


UPDATE: The European Commission pulled their video (though it exists elsewhere).  Smart to eliminate that distraction.  Now they should focus on what their target audience thinks is important and demonstrate the relevance of STEM.  They'd be smart to ask the many critics of the video to participate.

The Twitterverse 'sploaded over #sciencegirlthing, a new campaign intended to encourage girls in the European Union to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math.  They include some good profiles of women in STEM, but they also have this:

and I find it interesting that within minutes we learned that the ad firm that produced it also did this:

Scientists, especially female scientists, are not pleased. And the damage control begins, and frankly it's not good:

This video should be pulled immediately. It distracts from the central purpose of the campaign. It shouldn't be pulled simply because it's silly and offensive to many female scientists. It should be pulled because it's clear the video won't appeal to its target audience - millenial women. Millenals care about contributing to something greater than themselves. They don't like stereotypes.  They want to know that what they do produces results - quickly.  Makeup and glamour and all that are fun, but they're not what dominates your life. Millenials don't expect to be in a single job their whole lives.  Millenials want to know why whatever it is you're selling is relevant to them - in a meaningful way.

This video reflected none of the well-established research on what the target audience wants.  Instead it just re-purposed the strategy selling the smartphone app that lets you "take pictures of yourself" with soccer babes.

I think the EC went to an ad firm, and said, "we want you to make science sexy."   What they should have done is asked millenial women what was important to them and then tried to make the case that careers in STEM would help them achieve that.

This stuff isn't hard, people.

You want role models?  try #realwomenofscience.

21 June 2012

Nice soapbox you have there

A few months ago I wrote a "conflicted" take on the Science Online 2012 conference. "Scientists continue to feel the effects of a withering, coordinated attack in our politics and our culture," I said, "but collectively I don't think this community has anything resembling the sense of urgency or strategic consensus required to overcome it."  Then I really got all self-righteous and smarmy - "I for one am tired of analyzing the contour and measuring the force of the fist punching science in the face."

And of course, I backed my words up with... well... yeah, not so much. But I will say this - many of the people I met at that conference (and many others) are building momentum to launch a bit of a pro-science charm offensive.  And that's not such a bad idea.

Lou Woodley put together a great series on science communication and outreach at Nature.com's Soapbox Science blog, complete with a handy Twitter hashtag #reachingoutsci.  She lent me her soapbox for a moment, and I used the opportunity to outline some of the key elements of successful PR campaigns to a community that probably doesn't spend a ton of time talking about PR.  I remain enormously grateful - not simply for the chance to share my thoughts there, but also for the opportunity to learn from others who participated - people like Ravi Subramanian, Mark Henderson, Miriam Goldstein, Jeanne Garbarino, Katie Pratt, and James Lush.  The series was followed up with a discussion at the monthly Science Online NYC event.  They even gave me a PR lesson of sorts - their use of the social media tool Storify to highlight the series and event is a great online PR case study in tactical execution. 

I stand by my basic points from my initial rant.  More needs to be done in establishing both a sense of urgency and a perception that this is absolutely winnable among science advocates. The science community would benefit from a coordinated, overarching communications strategy that includes tested messages and measurable outcomes. But the more I learn about the commitment and eloquence of those who believe in science outreach, the more optimistic I become.