#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:

#sciencegirlthing aims to attract women to science. Launch video distracting from that.It has gone. science-girl-thing.eu
— Michael Jennings (@ECspokesScience) June 23, 2012

This is a good move.  I also like this:

OK scientists, we've heard you and we want to keep hearing you: Help us build a list of #realwomeninscience: twitter.com/#!/EU_Commissi…
— European Commission(@EU_Commission) June 22, 2012

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:

Lots of comments on #sciencegirlthing vid. 45 seconds of fun for launch to grab attention.Not central to main campaign.
— Michael Jennings (@ECspokesScience) June 22, 2012

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.

Most brilliant billboard ad campaign ever.

OK, for starters - climate change is real, it's caused by people, and the only real question is what should we do to stop it.  This really is the consensus from the scientific community, no matter what some politically or financially motivated people may tell you. If we lived in a society and had a media that cared about facts and reason and understood the dangers of misinformation, this would basically be the beginning and end of this discussion.

However, we live in America, so we get this:

Yes, this is part of a billboard campaign brought to you by our dear friends at the Heartland Institute.  In all my years I can think of no other billboard campaign in history that is so brain-searingly stupid and yet so utterly brilliant at the same time. Honestly, I look at it and all I can do is applaud.  I'm not even going to link to it because I really don't have to.

It's brilliant because it demonstrates a complex understanding of what it takes to make a splash in today's media and society.  We are rewarded when we go all-out, over-the-top, insert-lousy-metaphor-here crazy in public. And let's face it - this is Ted Nugent meets Octomom crazy.

It also demonstrates an understanding of where the money is.  While some reputable larger companies are pulling out of groups like Heartland after facing scrutiny when Heartland does... well... stuff like this, the Heartland guys know there are a couple of billionaires out there who will pay any price for anything that really pisses off liberals (and by extension here, scientists).  Now that the guys who almost singlehandedly bankrolled the Gingrich and / or Santorum campaigns are looking for something to do, up pops this idea.

Finally, it demonstrates an understanding of how to score "earned" media.  Millions of people will see these billboards - but only on computer screens. Stories about the campaign have been written by outraged liberals in the Guardian (UK), The Hill, The Daily Beast, The American Prospect, and countless blogs and tweets and Facebook posts.  Scientists and liberals will be giving this cheap stunt free publicity for weeks. And that's exactly what Heartland was hoping for when they thought of this.

Of course, this strategy probably isn't all that sustainable.  But then again, maybe it is. If you don't need facts or reason to get your point of view across, and all you have to do is annoy liberals and scientists who just plain NEVER go on offense, why would you ever stop?

Just go read the bloggess already.

it's here.

Personally I think the first FAIL is pitching the idea of a pseudo-celeb in "pantyhose." but I'm really glad Jenny called the PR firm out by name - that's the only thing that will get some folks to change.

I strongly oppose my recent behavior: Facebook, Burson, and digital PR

(Before I begin let me say this blog post reflects my own, personal opinions and no one else's.  I'm by no means perfect, personally or professionally.)

The big story in the tech media this week (other than a blogger outage) is Facebook's botched clandestine PR efforts against Google. For those who don't follow all things Facebook so closely here's the skinny from The Daily Beast, which broke the story.  Other people can talk about the business/legal/tech/whatever ramifications.  I have two thoughts.

First, I find it interesting that Burson threw its (now former) client under the bus, never an easy decision.  They acknowledged that they ignored their own "policies" on transparency, but this was the work that was presented to them and "the assignment under these terms should have been declined" - i.e., this was Facebook's idea and the only mistake we made was not realizing it sooner.  Facebook sort of pushes back, suggesting "no 'smear' campaign was authorized or intended," but they go on to say they wanted third parties to speak publicly while sidestepping the assertion that they wanted to hide their own identity in recruiting those third parties.  Burson is a legendary PR firm with a tradition of success - they wouldn't be where they are if they used these tactics all the time.  Facebook's record also speaks for itself. Both companies are acknowledging what they did was wrong, yet both companies are hinting the other company is responsible.  Awkward.

My second observation has to do with the exchange between PR guy and blogger.  Looking at the emails it doesn't seem that the Burson exec has a relationship with the blogger he contacted.   Set aside for the moment the enormous issue of transparency.  Is there ever a situation when an out-of-the-blue request to by-line a ghostwritten op-ed in the Washington Post is an appropriate or effective way to introduce yourself?

Building relationships with bloggers BEFORE your clients need them is not an easy thing to do.  It's time consuming.  It's uncomfortable. It's hard to justify to clients sometimes.  But if the people at either company had real, strong relationships with the bloggers they clearly needed to know ahead of time, they would have been able to deliver the message directly and transparently.   That's why I'm constantly telling my colleagues to always reach out to bloggers, whether you have something to pitch or not.  It's why I advocate for bloggers to the point of annoying colleagues.   It's why I'm still talking about the 3 R's of "blogger relations."

Today on WVLK: what women want

Today I'm scheduled to appear on WVLK's Kruser and Krew show at 1pm ET to share the findings of my exhaustive research on what women want.  You should be able to listen in by clicking this link.

I'm grateful to my client, Alltech, for asking me to conduct this "research" and to the women who answered my questions on this topic. If you're wondering, yes I do see the irony in a man explaining what women want.

I did most of the work for this on Twitter.  And here's a sample of who responded to my inquiries - it's not everybody but it's a pretty impressive group.  Most, though not all, are moms:

• Liz Gumbinner,  advertising exec, entrepreneur, and co-author of Booty Food
• Sheril Kirshenbaum, researcher, columnist at Bloomberg View, and author of The Science of Kissing
• Kristen Chase, entrepreneur, music therapist and author of The Mominatrix
• Susan Getgood, VP of Sales & Marketing, BlogHer
• Kelly Wickham, educator, writer
• Heather Chapman,  journalist
• Susan Niebur, astrophysicist, writer, 4-time cancer survivor
• Joanne Bamberger, attorney, entrepreneur, author of Mothers of Intention
• Alma Klein, marketing executive
• Cecily Kellogg, writer, SEO expert and social media strategist
• Thea Joselow, copywriter, entrepreneur
• Heather Barmore, education advocate, writer
• Dawn Crawford, social media strategist
• Carin Bondar, biologist, filmmaker
• Stefania Pomponi Butler, entrepreneur
• Andrea Kuszewski, researcher, therapist, writer
• Sarah Braesch, entrepreneur, sports fan
• Jenny Lawson, author, columnist for the Houston Chronicle
• Julie Marsh, entrepreneur, former military officer, triathlete
• Catherine Holecko, journalist
• Pam Slim, entrepreneur, author and business coach
• Catherine Connors, entrepreneur, writer, philanthropist
• Tanis Miller, advocate for persons with disabilities, writer
• Susan Davis, freelance writer
• Amanda Eamich, online communications specialist for a government agency
• Jaelithe Judy, writer, SEO consultant
• Leigh Ann Simmons, researcher, entrepreneur, my wife

So tune in and offer a question or a thought or two.  I'm @dwescott1 on Twitter.

(gulp.)

Great, no pressure

So I'm giving a talk next month in Kentucky.  Nothing too out of the ordinary there, right? Lots of PR folks give lots of presentations in lots of places.

Except this talk is called "What Women Want" and I'm supposed to go on local radio next week to talk about it. So I'm doing exhaustive research on the topic, using the most sophisticated tools and approaching the most credible sources.  Here's a glimpse of the sheer genius I've unearthed:

Make sure you tune in to the live online stream on May 3 at 1pm...  And may @almightygod have mercy on my soul. 

Science, Ethics, and SEO

David Kroll alerted me to a local tidbit with some interesting PR applications:

Go ahead and Google Anil Potti.

No longer do the majority of top search results for the former Duke cancer researcher detail allegations that he falsified his resume and produced faulty research that has been retracted from renowned medical journals and led to the termination of three clinical trials. Instead, more than a dozen websites and social media accounts created in the months following Dr. Potti’s November resignation contain solely positive information about his research and medical experience.

For those who don't know, Anil Potti used to be a research scientist at Duke University.  He resigned in November 2010 after he retracted a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology and questions were raised about accomplishments listed on his CV.  More retractions from top journals soon followed.  The whole affair caused quite a stink and it remains a reasonably common topic among academics here today.

Now the Duke Chronicle reports Dr. Potti has hired a service to "manage his online reputation."  The service apparently uses some fairly basic search engine optimization (SEO) tactics.  Basically he's just creating a bunch of websites with his name on them so people who enter his name in Google will (hopefully) find the sites he's created before they find anything else.  Dr. Kroll and others wonder if it's ethical.

OK, let's start with the basics.

Dr. Potti has apparently created accounts with the large social networking utilities - Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn.  Nothing wrong with that.  He's purchased the URL's that spell his name.  Also fine.  He's created some websites that say he's a doctor and that he worked with cancer patients.  As far as I know nothing on the websites is inaccurate.  He just leaves out the whole "retracted my papers and resigned in disgrace" thing.  Which, if you're an academic, is a pretty big deal.

Yet everyone has a right to tell you what they want you to know about them. Potti is under no obligation to volunteer the fact that he got into loads of trouble at Duke. That would be like the guy who launched his campaign for a Senate seat by disclosing his drunk-driving arrest and restraining order from an ex-girlfriend at his kick-off press conference. (Yes, that really happened.)

I'm not going to put myself out there as the authority on ethics.  But I can say this - if this SEO stuff represents the entirety of Dr. Potti's reputation do-over, it's a pretty stupid strategy.

All it does is sweep some significant negative information under a virtual rug - and for whom?  Potti's field is clinical oncology research. This is not a large community.  They all know his story.  Hiring decisions in this field are not based solely on a Google search.  His reputation in this field is most likely beyond repair.

Further, Potti's PR strategy (if this is actually a strategy) lacks what some of my colleagues call an "admit point."   If you want to regain credibility, you have to acknowledge an error in judgment, and explain how that error won't happen again.  This SEO tactic suggests Potti isn't interested in redemption, he's interested in forgetting the whole thing - and he hopes you will too.

Maybe Potti knows his career is over and he just doesn't want the scandals to be the last word on his work.  Or he doesn't want his family to Google his name and read the record.  If that's what this is about, then the SEO tactics are fine.  But let's not fool ourselves into thinking this will repair his professional reputation.

Curing "The Gay" - Now Available on iTunes

Old pal John Aravosis reports that Exodus International now has its very own iPhone app - one that tells kids they can relieve their burdens of homosexuality through prayer:

Pardon my French, but WTF? Why does Apple require you to click some "yes I'm old enough" button when downloading gay apps on the iPhone, but when downloading "ex-gay" apps - i.e., apps built by hateful anti-gay bigots who falsely tell young impressionable children that they can pray away the gay - Apple has no restrictions at all on that app. In spite of the fact that federal statistics show 1 in 3 gay kids tries to commit suicide. In spite of the fact that the very first thing in the FAQ of the app is focused at kids.

Apple would be wise to be very, very cautious here. I'm sure the argument they'll make is on first amendment and restraint of trade grounds - people of faith have as much right to their marketplace as anyone else, and they can't be denying apps simply because their content is controversial.  But they clearly are, and want to be, the dominant (if not the only) online marketplace for mobile applications.  They undeniably exercise their market power to influence other market forces to their advantage - look at the fight over flash versus HTML5.    And they review and approve any application that will be available for download - and quite often deny or restrict apps based on their content.  This makes them first amendment traffic cops by default.

So they're in a similar situation to what Facebook was in back in 2007 - banning pictures of breastfeeding while allowing pro-anorexia groups to grow and thrive on their massive-but-closed network.

And let's be clear about one thing - there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence whatsoever that so-called "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" or whatever Exodus International wants to call it will turn people from gay to straight.  None. Nada. Zilch. Zip.  Zero.   There is evidence, however, that this kind of "therapy" is harmful.  

From a PR perspective, I think Apple just dropped a turd in the collective lap of its gay and lesbian employees, not to mention loyal customers like John.  I understand the free-speech argument, but I don't envy Apple's position now as the arbiter of what's appropriate and what's not.  Because as John points out, their position is already precarious.

Of course, they could open up the iTunes store, creating even more choice for consumers, allowing for more innovation and creativity... oh, right.

Charlie Sheen Is In On The Joke

Coming Soon to Reality TV

And right now he owns the media.

I just resurfaced from a few days offline to learn about "winning" and tiger blood and warlock assassins hired by the Pope.  And how Charlie Sheen is getting so much airtime on every big talk show and got a million followers on Twitter in a day and all that.  And how there are revolutions happening in Arab countries, Wisconsin is about to fire a bunch of teachers, initial jobless claims in the US are finally dipping below 400K per week, but none of that really matters because some actor likes to sleep with two women and say weird stuff about his boss.

Is he suffering from mental illness?  Ask someone who would know.  But this strikes me as a situation that will be settled by lawyers, not doctors.  Because somewhere right now someone is developing a plan for a Charlie Sheen reality tv show. And they're trying to figure out what, if anything, they can do to buy off CBS and get this into production.   And Charlie Sheen knows this and he's stoking his PR and he's trying to get people to use his goofy catchphrases and he's demonstrating to networks and production houses that he commands an audience.  And he's telling people to sit back and enjoy the show.

And predictably we're all buying it.  The speculation on his mental health, his family situation, his cracks about being a fighter jet.  This is what gets you noticed today.

Charlie Sheen wants to live a rockstar lifestyle, he hates his boss, and he's angling for a new gig.  That's all.

Woe is the PR guy

So the Boston Globe reports that a local nightclub has paid a fine and issued a public apology for turning away a group of black students from Harvard who reserved a party room there last November after the Harvard-Yale game.   Seems like the nightclub's owners finally admitted they did a stupid, racist thing.

But here's where things get weird to me:

Last fall, speaking on behalf of the nightclub, George K. Regan Jr. told the Globe "there were a lot of people in line known to police and police and security circles as bad people, OK? They probably couldn't spell the word `Harvard."

I could be wrong but I think that's THIS George K. Regan Jr. - chairman of one of the most prestigious communications firms in Boston history.  This guy is no dope.    But the story goes on, and quotes from the public apology:

"Cure Lounge further apologizes for the statements made on its behalf by its public relations group in the days following the event. Those statements were uninformed and in no way reflect the values or beliefs of the owners, managers, and employees of Cure Lounge."

So the lawyers throw the PR guy under the bus.  Not the first time this has happened.  But Regan is a big deal, especially in Boston.  This statement could make it seem like Regan was the "uninformed" racist, and not the nightclub.  Regan has a reputation to protect.  And protect it he does:

In a telephone interview today, Regan bristled at being blamed for the comments he made at the request of the club’s owners last fall when the issue gained media attention and the attention of Boston City At-Large Councilor Ayanna Pressley. 

“I apologize for nothing,’’ Regan said. “I personally don’t happen to frequent the Cure Lounge. The facts that were related to the media I was told by the owners, who happened to be there.’’ 

Regan added, “they’re obviously under a lot of pressure from the attorney general’s office. They have a (nightclub) license to protect. Good luck to them. I did nothing but repeat what I was told by the owners.’’

Before you openly question the value-add of a PR firm if all the flack is doing is repeating what he's told, give this situation some thought. I've been in a situation where my client isn't telling me the truth, and I'm giving advice and making public statements based on that untrue information. When you learn the truth, you feel awful.   I believe Regan was repeating what he was told - and you have to trust your client. It's not like he could talk with the people who were turned away from the club.  He's not going to run background checks on nightclub attendees.

The tough part is throwing your (perhaps former) client under the bus in response.  Clients are organizations with many people. Sometimes some of those people make stuff up to protect themselves.  Companies may see a PR guy retaliate like that and wonder if he'll do the same to them if the situation gets dicey.   So as the PR guy, you're really stuck - let people assume you're an "uninformed" racist, or be the guy who slams a client when you feel the heat yourself.  It's a tough call.  Maybe Regan didn't think so, but I do.

Generally PR flacks aren't people who engender a lot of empathy.  Regan is a big boy and I know he can take a shot or two.  But as a guy who's been there, I can feel for him.

(no, I'm not looking for a job.)

Climate Change and Strategic Communications

This is how scientists prove their critics are wrong - but line graphs don't shift public opinion

The scientific case regarding man-made climate change has never been stronger.  Climate change is real, our actions are prompting it, and the failure to address this will lead to severe consequences.   (here's how it works - we burn oil and coal and gas, which belches a humongous amount of carbon into the air, which traps heat in the atmosphere, causing all sorts of weird weather and other nasty stuff.  It's more complicated than that, but that's basically it.  It's actually pretty intuitive.  Pour enough crap into anything that supports life and eventually bad things happen.)

The political position of those who would fight climate change has never been weaker.  Last year the US House of Representatives (under Democratic control) passed a "climate bill" that was widely regarded by pundits as the absolute most that could be accomplished politically - and widely panned by environmentalists as not nearly enough to turn the tide.  The Senate didn't pass anything.  Last year's UN meeting on climate change - the overblown farce known as COP 15 - saw a lot of speeches that said "the time for talk is over, the time for action is now" but produced an "accord" that basically said climate change is a bad thing and maybe someday someone should think about doing something.  Maybe.  Even though the "scientific" arguments presented by climate change deniers are absolutely pathetic (as outlined in Dr. Gleick's piece at Huffington Post), they're still winning on Capitol Hill.

This year, House committees (now under Republican control) will hold hearings designed to smear climate scientists.  A "climate bill" isn't even under serious consideration in the House or the Senate.  (We will see, however, a debate on abolishing the EPA.)  Companies that profit from burning oil, coal and gas have funded all sorts of "think-tanks" and hired a bunch of PR guys to work together to confuse the issue and make sure John Q. Nascar remains focused on the things he can see, like President Obama's birth certificate from Kenya.  (it's on the internet, you know.) The UN meeting on climate change that took place in December (COP 16) thankfully wasn't overhyped, but didn't really accomplish much more than COP 15. And I'm not the only person who noticed that the words "climate change" mysteriously disappeared from the State of the Union address this year.

The problem is simple: those who support the status quo have a coherent, coordinated, and well-funded communications strategy.  Those who support real change (and sound science) do not.

So when I see someone like Chris Mooney - someone who is smart and actually trying to fight this battle - point to a form letter written by a group of scientists addressed to every Member of Congress and suggest it "teaches us a thing or two about communication" - I have to sigh.  Chris clearly has an optimistic viewpoint on this and says he wants to encourage more scientists to get involved in the political process.  He's right about that.  However, since the pro-science (and actually pro-business) message on climate change comes in uncoordinated and often random spurts, it has very little impact.  And when scientists make the observation that their valuable time and effort on outreach like this is being wasted, they are less inclined to try it again.

So my advice - start working more closely together and agree on a strategy, a message, and a set of tactics.   And if all you want to do is criticize how others are doing this, or say it's not worth doing because it's not perfect, STFU and go away.   Here's an outline of what I'd do, as promised in an earlier post.

Topline Strategy: Position your side as the solution, the way forward.  Associate supporters of the status quo with the salient problems of the status quo more generally, and position them as opponents of progress.  You saw something resembling this in the most recent State of the Union Address. The President didn't mention the words "climate change" but he did talk a lot about "winning the future" and the economic benefits of clean energy technology.    Then develop a range of strategic and realistic policy goals and attack.

Identify your audience.  "Everybody" is not an audience. "Members of Congress" are an audience, but the way to reach them isn't a letter.  You need to have face-to-face meetings with them and their staffs.  More importantly, you need to have face to face meetings with the people who influence those Members of Congress most.   I think that means the real audience is the media, business leaders, trade associations, and political donors.   As for consumers - and they're also important, because they vote - Mom is unquestionably the household decision maker for basically everything, so you need to develop a coherent message for moms.

Messaging.  Have a backgrounder available for the paleo-clima-anthropomorphi-techno stuff, but scientists and environmentalists aren't losing this fight on the science.  They're losing on the economics. Right now, the message from the other side is simple: capping carbon = less energy use = less economic activity = less profit = fewer jobs for John Q. Nascar.   But to buy into their mindset you have to believe that we won't or can't change the way we use energy, that efficiency doesn't really move the needle, and that wind power is crazy-looking. I think it's time people realized that we don't have cap-and-trade, and the economy sucks anyway.  While messaging should always be in the authentic voice of the person speaking, I think it makes sense for everyone who's speaking on the pro-science side of the topic to assert the following general points:

• The people who deny climate science support a status quo that works for no one but them. High energy prices hurt the entire economy - except maybe a handful of companies and individuals.  We're looking forward but they're clinging to the past.
• Climate science deniers also deny consumer choice.  The technology exists to give us electric cars, energy-efficient appliances, and so on.  Polls show millions of people want them.  But the people who say climate change is a "hoax" also oppose policies that would make it easier for consumers to get them.
• Climate science deniers oppose innovation.  They've gone all-in for a 20th-Century energy strategy that says "dig it out of the ground and set it on fire." They work hard to make sure the rules favor this strategy, and they're holding on to their advantage for as long as they can.

There are other points to make, but if you notice, these general arguments (opposing the status quo, supporting choice and innovation) are largely generic arguments that "test well" with the public and with policy elites across all sorts of issues.  They're also relevant and truthful.  This sort of thing has to be THE message - not "the sky is falling," not something about tree rings, not something that must be measured in parts per billion.  

I'm sure some scientists are thinking "we've said all that already."  Not really, no. These messages haven't been forcefully, clearly, creatively, and repeatedly delivered to the people who matter.  They haven't been built into a coordinated campaign that includes earned media, paid media, social media, and lobbying.  

As for policy issues, there are plenty of options - but what's most important is going on offense.  A really smart political operative once told me "if you're not on offense, you're on defense - and if you're on defense, you're losing."  If you're looking for specifics I recommend my pal the Ecopolitologist for ideas.  Start with battles you have a good chance of winning, build momentum, and keep pushing.  And stop it already with the "it's not for scientists to decide policy, our role is only to share data and analysis."  Everyone has a right to participate completely in the political process. Everyone.

Online PR: In Need Of A Colon Cleanse

Dr. Val passed on a post by Gary Schweitzer, a healthcare media critic and publisher of a valuable site, HealthNewsReview.org.  Schweitzer wrote his version of the bad pitch blog as a year-end post, running down some of the garbage he got this year. I snipped out some of my favorites:

• "natural essence water" that saves men from nagging wives or girlfriends who may think you're a "schlub"
• an offer of a free sample (street value of $60) of a colon-cleansing/detoxifying product. (What do they know about my colon? Is it toxic? I didn't take them up on the offer.)
• a note that was entitled "Chill Your Buns" that offered free samples of a "cold therapy" for hemorrhoids. (OK, what do they know about my buns and beyond?)

Read the whole list - it would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.  It wasn't just that the pitches ranged from silly to snake oil.  It's that the pitches were sent to a media critic.  He's the guy who actually evaluates healthcare journalism.  He's pretty good at it.  He'd likely slam a publication that ran with one of these pitches. And he clearly got dozens of them.

The moral of Schweitzer's story isn't that the pitches are pathetic, it's that healthcare journalism is too dependent on PR and the impenetrable wall between editorial and advertising seems to be thinning a bit. He's clearly right about this, but I'm more concerned with the apparently auto-generated and mind-numbingly stupid outreach. Schweitzer was far more restrained in his criticism than I would have been.

The sad truth is we're going to have more, not less, of this crap in 2011.  Companies will try even harder to commoditize online outreach to the point where cost and speed become the only criteria for choosing an approach.  I already get the emails - "buy my blogger database" to cut down on your research costs and send bulk pitch emails.  I'm in a lot of these databases already - and in several of them, the blog is called a "music blog," a "tech blog," an even a "sports blog."

I've also gotten generic emails with nothing more than a press release and a "please share with your readers" - from a college on the west coast announcing new courses in social media marketing. I assume this is where students will learn all those advanced techniques people use to build strong, personalized relationships with bloggers.

Online PR - at least what I think of it - is headed in the wrong direction.  We're obsessed with all the shiny new tools and the new networks and all that.  But for cost control reasons we label people and bloggers without even looking at what those people have to say - and we're getting worse, not better.  Social media is not static, and people can't be tagged with a single label.  Database-driven bulk email strategies are more risk than they're worth.

To any companies reading this blog, I can say without reservation that buying a well-developed ad program with a thoughtful placement strategy yields a much higher ROI than what we're doing now, and at comparable if not better cost.    If you're really concerned about building or protecting reputation for your brand or your company, throw away the database and do the work necessary to earn the trust of people.

Science Cheerleader and the Brouhaha

Both of the people who read this blog regularly know I'm a contributor to Science Cheerleader, run by Darlene Cavalier.  Darlene leverages her position as a former cheerleader for the Philadelphia 76ers to attack a pair of stereotypes: don't assume cheerleaders are ditzy blondes, and don't assume scientists are ugly nerds. Darlene is one of the very few people who actually tries to push science content into more "mainstream" communities that don't see it often, and she knows you sometimes have to find creative angles to do this.

Darlene was at the National Science & Engineering Festival on the Mall in DC with a group of professional cheerleaders who also have careers in science.  At the event the cheerleaders talked with young people about pursuing careers in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) fields, explained a bit about their jobs and what it took to get them, and how rewarding careers in those fields can be.  Media reports suggest it was a very positive experience for the kids at the event, and I'm sure the cheerleaders had a good time too.

They also produced the following "offending" video:



The event on the Mall generated some fairly robust criticism from the science blogosphere. Apparently some people thought the "GOOOOO SCIENCE" cheering stuff was basically all they did, and never checked with Darlene (or read any of the ample news coverage, or even visited The Science Cheerleader blog) to check on this.  Some of the criticism was really quite thoughtful, some was rather misinformed, and some suggested that the blogger saw the word "cheerleader" and really couldn't get past it. You can find a decent summary with a lot of links at Skulls in the Stars.

I've had a lot to say about this in the past. I think making science "relevant" is more important than making it "cool," but if cool opens the door first then that's what you do.  I reached out to Darlene before I wrote this to get her thoughts.  She's taken more than her share of criticism from science bloggers, and she doesn't take it personally.  However, she was a bit surprised at how many bloggers got their facts wrong.  More than once she noted the irony of science bloggers who often complain that journalists don't check their facts now doing the same thing here.  Darlene has been very accessible about this project, and she's consistently asked bloggers to contact her if they have questions about anything.

The other point she mentioned more than once - science bloggers aren't her audience.  Kids (especially girls) and moms are. To this audience, "cool" is basically the same thing as "relevant."  Darlene gets letters and emails - lots of 'em - from moms thanking her.  Letters that say things like "my daughter has only been interested in cheerleading and now you've shown her that she can do this too."

There's an issue here that irks me a bit more than it does Darlene.  I've worked in PR and politics for about 20 years now, so I've spent a lot of time developing and implementing successful communications campaigns. What Darlene has done strikes me as effective, at least in terms of the media attention and the spike in traffic to her blog. Time will tell if it contributes to more people pursuing STEM careers.  But she's getting bashed by people who have never developed a successful communications campaign in their lives and wouldn't know the first thing about building one. And here's the kicker - many of them don't publish their real names on their own blogs.

I understand completely why some people feel the need to remain anonymous as bloggers. Sharing thoughts publicly involves some risk, and sometimes the only way you can safely get information "out there" is anonymously.  This isn't unique to the science blogosphere - it happens a lot with people who write about finance.  Further, some people just don't want the over-the-top abuse Darlene or people like Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney take when they put their names to their words.   I'm cool with that.

But let's get real here.  Sometimes - definitely not always but sometimes - some of this anonymous posting is really about avoiding accountability.  It's about sidestepping the awkward moment when you meet the person you called an "ignorant fuckwit" last month.  And sometimes maybe it's writing something that benefits you personally or professionally without having to disclose that teensy little conflict of interest.  Maybe some people find anonymous bloggers to be completely credible.  For me, there will always be that kernel of doubt.

Bottom line - Darlene is one of the few people actually trying to bring science to mainstream communities and having some success. She's putting science in a positive light. She would be the first person to tell you her approach isn't intended to engage everyone on everything.  But she takes constructive criticism very well, she's open to working with people who don't agree with her on everything (like me), and she has a relentlessly positive attitude.

And with very few exceptions, the science blogosphere remains scientists talking with other scientists about science and the things that irk scientists.  There's nothing wrong with that, but science needs all the PR help it can get these days.  If you want to criticize the people who are trying to promote science and scientists, you might want to put some actual skin in the game.

And start by sharing your name.

When "Rapid Response" Isn't Enough

First, know this: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

It's somewhat heartening to learn that some in the scientific community are trying to prepare for the political onslaught that Congressional Republicans and anti-science zealots will be launching next year:

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.

John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.

The notion that some (not nearly all) scientists want to mix it up a bit and push back on political aggressors is unmistakable progress.  But here's the simple truth in politics and PR these days: If you're waiting for something to say something untrue about you or your work before you decide to speak, you're waiting too long.  

So what should scientists do now?  Simple - strike FIRST.  Define the lie. Do it in a political context.

One of the things they could do is hold a press conference in DC before the new Congress is seated and let the political reporters know some basic facts.  Not necessarily the science of climate change, because most political reporters don't care about the science of climate change.  The basic facts I'm talking about can be summed up thusly:  if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.  Get out there first and define the lie.  Yes, it's been said before.  But not really in this context - right as a session of Congress is beginning.  Make sure everyone knows they're lying - make sure it's the default position.  Then let the media investigate the motivation behind the lie.

Then follow up the press conference with editorial board meetings with the newspapers in key Congressional districts (i.e., the members of Congress who chair relevant committees), again with the simple, clear message: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

Then take the most noteworthy climate scientists in particular states where members of Congress are beholden to those who might see value in obfuscating climate science and have them deliver a clear, simple message to the media there: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

Do it first.  Do it NOW. Do it again and again and again.  Have the scientific details available in a hand-out for anyone who asks, but keep the message clear and simple. Yes, it's been done before, but not like this.  Hey, politics is inherently uncomfortable, regardless of the level of "civility," but leave no doubt about what's the truth and what's a lie.

If a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

On the road again...

gonna be a busy couple of weeks so posting will be light.  Again.  just a couple of quick things.

First, the latest iteration of old-school vs. blogosphere happened in, of all places, a chemistry journal. Just the same old arguments - bloggers can't be trusted etc - from another obsolescent form of publishing. I was going to write the obligatory I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I post but the science bloggers did it better, so you should read this from David Kroll and this from Deborah Blum if you care to get the smart reaction.

I also noticed Maureen Dowd recently lamented the rebirth of anti-intellectualism on the right wing. I'm not going to do the "it happens as much on the left" thing because honestly, it doesn't.  

My take on it is simple - we've allowed our politics to descend to new depths of stupid.  We're poised to elect people who essentially believe dinosaurs and people lived together on this earth and belching a gazillion tons of smoke into the air really doesn't do anything bad, and it's totally OK to ignore challenging questions from reporters or even citizens, and it's even ok to hide where you get your money to broadcast your made-up crap.

We've allowed it to happen because no one with real power on the left (or even in the middle) has actually done anything to make it stop.

It's especially harmful to people in my line of work because most people see politics and PR as largely the same thing these days.  PR is actually about getting to the truth.  It's about telling people what's important.  Sadly our politicians (and too many PR folks) think PR is about changing the subject or hiding what matters most.

If you do this right - or if you really want to do this right - you think Campaign 2010 is inherently bad for business.