Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts

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.

09 June 2010

Buying Google Ads Is Not a Crime

I think it's safe to say I haven't been too kind to BP in the past couple of weeks.  But when I saw a bunch of "mainstream" media breathlessly report that the company bought up all the sponsored links on Google searches about the oil spill - like that was some sort of scandal - I had to chuckle.

Buying search ads is one of the first things I'd do if I worked for them.

You can take issue with the way the company has addressed the crisis.  You can take issue with the content of the ad itself. You can at least make an argument that the company doesn't need any more attention and shouldn't ask for it.  But at least on this, the company has something to say in their own voice and has the right to buy an ad.  It's really not any different than buying an ad in a relevant section of a newspaper.

This isn't a transparency issue.  Ads are clearly marked on Google.  And contrary to what Howard Fineman said on MSNBC the other night, the company didn't "buy the algorithm." It's only logical that their site would rise to the top of organic search rankings.

But here's the thing for me:  Nobody is forcing anyone to click on a specific search result. There are no "google police."   We're acting like scrolling down to the bottom of the screen and clicking "next" is some kind of monumental task.  

Just wait - I'm sure someone will sue over this.