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:
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.
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.
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.
Next week North Carolinians will go to the polls to vote on a state constitutional amendment asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman only. (Of course, that's already the law here.) One might expect that this would pass easily in a southern state, but the outcome is in question for a variety of reasons. First, legal scholars say the amendment creates a host of unintended consequences on issues such as domestic violence. Ohio had these problems for years after they passed a similar amendment.
Second, and perhaps more relevant to this blog - opponents of the amendment have employed an unconventional strategy. They have used social media tools to highlight the words and actions of the amendment's most strident supporters. Two of the more popular examples of this are basic displays of typical redneckery - YouTube videos of young supporters, umm... defacing "oppose the amendment" lawn signs, either with urine or buckshot. (The internet is forever, idiots.) Another popular one is the support the amendment has received from white supremacists. But to me, the most effective example has been the audio recording from a North Carolina pastor suggesting parents should "punch" the gay out of their kids, and giving them a "special dispensation" to do exactly that. Listen for yourself.
Normally it isn't wise to promote the views of your opponents in a political campaign. But amendment one opponents are banking on it - they assert that these views are held by most amendment supporters and they are trying to show the rest of the world what they're dealing with.
I'm an opponent of the amendment for a variety of reasons - mostly because I think gay people should have the same rights as anyone else, but also because this amendment goes far beyond what proponents say. I do think, however, this is a somewhat risky strategy. Social media tools can be very effective at times, but in my experience it serves to strengthen opinion within specific communities more than persuade people beyond that community. Are the typical and perhaps undecided voters watching these videos and considering them as they come to a decision on the amendment? Maybe. But I'm completely convinced the overwhelming majority of views and shares are coming from people who are already decided and going to other people who are already decided.
Of course, this isn't the only strategic element to the campaign, and I do think opponents have done a good job garnering support from the business community and from mainstream media outlets. But in the end, we'll see if highlighting the bigotry of the old south online will help lead to a new southern ideal of equality.
Some friends of mine at Science Debate released a survey a couple of weeks ago that reported something that shouldn't be at all surprising or even newsworthy. Americans of faith want more sound science and less ideological nonsense in politics. (Yes, that includes "born again" Christians that effete chardonnay-sipping Massachusetts liberal pansies like me like to mock so much.)
It makes sense, after all - believing in God doesn't mean you automatically think climate change is a hoax (it isn't) or that vaccines cause autism (they don't). Best of all, I think, was the strong support given to sound science in policy specifically from Republicans. The survey suggested that Republicans oppose political censorship of scientific reports more strongly than Democrats do. I'll be honest - this surprised me a little bit. But then, it was a Republican who tweeted this:
To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
— Jon Huntsman (@JonHuntsman) August 18, 2011
I guess what's so confusing to me then, is this poll seems to fly in the face of beltway punditry conventional wisdom. Nobody in DC ever thought Jon Huntsman had a chance to win the GOP nomination for President, and this tweet even prompted remarks from "leading" commentators how this eliminated any remote possibility of winning. During the presidential primaries, all of the candidates either backed away from previous pro-science positions, fudged, or outright denied overwhelming scientific consensus.
But I thought it was a good time to remind everyone what evolution is and isn't - from credible, articulate voices. I'm so grateful to all the people who participated in this, and I hope we can do more things like it. The voters are apparently on our side - hopefully someday the politicians will follow their lead.
ScienceOnline 2012 has concluded, and the snap reviews are glowing and well deserved. It was great to reconnect with acquaintances, and to meet people whose work I've been reading and admiring for some time. I'm very grateful for the well-developed program, the brilliant speakers and attendees, and the spectacular organizers.
However, #scio12 also left me surprisingly conflicted and frustrated.
To me, science is hope. It's the process by which we discover our origins, try to understand our present, and help shape our future. It holds the promise for addressing humanity's greatest challenges. And it's even more than that - it's what lets me watch my little boy's eyes light up when I tell him birds are, in a very real sense, dinosaurs. It's what makes every make-believe launch of a rocket ship into outer space just a little more fun. It's what makes every moment in the backyard an opportunity for discovery. The people who pursue science and who share it with the rest of us are among my most valued heroes. It's really that big a deal to me.
And yet, scientists continue to feel the effects of a withering, coordinated attack in our politics and in our culture. This is nothing new, of course - but the attack is increasingly well-financed, sophisticated and diverse. The strategy is to associate many scientists with something foreign, conspiratorial, and nefarious. To create just enough public doubt over well-established scientific consensus that certain people avoid accountability. To create an atmosphere that prompts everything from government censorship to death threats, and compels scientists to think twice about speaking up. Failing that, to marginalize scientists to the point where excluding them from important policy decisions is commonplace. The success of this strategy, of course, relies on a relatively uninformed and fairly disinterested population.
I think most #scio12 attendees agree generally on the political and cultural challenge. I also think there are a good number of individual people there who do their own part to address a small piece of it. But collectively, I don't think this community has anything resembling the sense of urgency or the strategic consensus required to overcome it.
There were plenty of panels that focused on particular pieces of this. One focused on science literacy. Another on outreach. A couple more focused on politics. And a very important one focused on interacting with the media. And from the panels I attended (and others I read about via twitter etc) I was struck by how reluctant so many scientists are to engage beyond their own community. They talked about the inherent and legitimate risks scientists (and especially non-tenured scientists) take just by talking to reporters and all the things that could go wrong. There was very little about what could go right. There was skepticism that anything could be accomplished by "framing issues" or PR campaigns. There were many examples of politics encroaching on sound science, but very little about scientists organizing or fundraising or running for office or developing strategic communications campaigns.
From my perspective, #scio12 was an amazingly deep dive into the details and tactics of science communication, up to and including the differences in brain chemistry between liberals and conservatives. But all I could keep thinking of was what an unnamed George W. Bush Administration aide (long rumored to be Karl Rove) told Ron Suskind in 2004:
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'
And I can't help but think that's what science is up against today. Seriously.
What's even more frustrating is the individual elements of a strategic plan to win this fight - and believe me, it is a fight - were everywhere at #scio12. I wish more people could have seen Matt Shipman tremble when he described to me the righteous fury he feels over injustices in his community - and then how he channels it positively through his First Step Project. I wish more people could summon the measured dignity and good humor Josh Rosenau constantly displays when he peacefully confronts his adversaries on the issue of teaching evolution. And I wish someone would just give Danielle Lee a microphone, stick her in front of a television camera, and tell her to just say whatever comes to mind - because, well, see for yourself:
(One take, people. ONE TAKE. Unscripted. Imagine what this would be if I didn't suck so bad at recording video.)
I realize, of course, that it's not #scio12's responsibility to stimulate a grassroots effort to make science more popular and relevant, or compel politicians and business leaders to see a huge downside to censoring or otherwise obfuscating science. And I also realize that there are dozens - maybe hundreds - more examples of people doing the right thing among the attendees. And yes, it's very important to have sessions about literacy and outreach and dealing with the media and what makes a conservative's brain tick.
But I for one am tired of analyzing the contour and measuring the force of the fist punching "science" in the face. The other side has a strategy, and they are committed to action more than analysis. They're always on offense. It's time to develop an overarching strategy that positions science and scientists as the good guys and critics as the bad guys. It's time to move the needle of public opinion, and it starts by increasing the number of people who actually know a living scientist. It's time to coordinate efforts, develop a real commitment to outreach, and then just go out and git'er done.
I think what pisses me off most of all is that I haven't thought it all through, and I don't have the time to do it myself. But despite this rant, I am hopeful - if for no other reason than the amazing people who put on and attend #scio12.
I'm going to be away from the blog for a bit, but I saw a great piece from Christie Wilcox at Science Sushi (via the Scientific American blog network) about scientists and social media. She struck some themes I know I've mentioned here before... a lot. Of course, since she's a scientist, she has enormous credibility. But here's a compilation of what this flack has had to say about this issue, and I think it boils down to this: scientists need to do more and better outreach to non-scientists. I hope you'll take a look at one or two of these inane rants.
So Newsweek decides to publish the latest in the "cheap-shot unflattering pictures of political women" saga. And the media now plasters it all over the place because this is somehow a story now, and the Newsweek Daily Beast team gets free advertising for lowering our political discourse just a bit more. And this, of course, sparks another silly partisan sideshow that no one really cares about. Fox News asks aloud "what does Newsweek have against conservative women?" - you know, because that network would never do anything sexist or insulting to Congresswoman Bachmann or publish any less-than-ideal pictures of a political woman. And sadly, we all miss the point. Again.
Weak
Because this is nothing new. If a political woman dares to raise her voice, she can expect stories that cite anonymous snipers whining about her "abrasive personal style," which is the worst euphemism for "bitch" I've ever seen. Put Secretary Clinton in the situation room during the attack on Osama bin Laden's compound and suddenly a picture that includes her hand over her mouth becomes a national story. I put my hand over my mouth all the time. I look at that picture and I still don't get it. But whatever I'm missing is apparently such a big deal that one newspaper in Israel actually photoshopped her out of the picture altogether. You know, because a woman shouldn't be in that room or something. The paper apologized after the fact but shouldn't it make you wonder why someone felt the need to edit the picture in the first place?
Ditsy
Pictures show up all the time that take cheap shots at women who dare to lead. The editors and others who publish them usually won't have the guts to say what they really want to say - something like "Sarah Palin is ditsy" - but they'll print the one picture in the roll of 50 that shows her eyes a bit wider than normal or in the middle of a gesture that takes a fraction of a second. They won't say "Nancy Pelosi is a lunatic," but we all see the pictures with the wide eyes suddenly appear in news publications.
And that's just the mainstream publications. Just do an image search on google for any leading political woman and you almost immediately see the wonders of photoshop. Heads on the bodies of porn stars. Faces planted on the backside of a horse. I've even seen an editorial cartoon of Secretary Rice pregnant with a monkey. The original cartoon came from a Palestinian paper - and then it was quickly republished online by several American news sites.
Of course, what happens if the woman dares to complain? She can't take the heat. She doesn't belong in politics. She's easily distracted. But nobody really thinks much about what happens when that woman's children see the pictures. Some might even blame the woman - "you had to be prepared for that."
Scary
Do we see unflattering pictures of political men? Sure. Newsweek just took a cheap shot at Mitt Romney too. Bloggers have posted photoshopped pics of Presidents and Prime Ministers. But be honest- they don't get the reaction that pictures of women do, and I'm fairly certain the frequency for women is disproportionately large.
And pictures are just one aspect of the larger cultural problem. I remember when John McCain told a joke at a Republican fundraiser - to great laughs - "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." Some papers censored the joke, but others, like the Arizona Republic, didn't. McCain apologized (after his press secretary initially denied he ever told the joke), but again - what makes anyone think it's even remotely ok to say things like this? Why weren't there huge consequences to this?
Angry
A couple of weeks ago I recorded a discussion with Joanne Bamberger - the blogger known as PunditMom and the author of the new book Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media Are Revolutionizing Politics in America. We talked a bit about this phenomenon and I asked her how she thought women should respond to cheap shots like Congresswoman Bachmann being asked point blank, "Are you a flake?" The conversation should be available on her blog in the near future, and I think she lays out the issues really well and gives some thoughts on how things might change. I hope she posts the interview soon.
There's one approach to addressing this issue that I'd like feedback from women. I remember a while back a running bit on Saturday Night Live called "Janet Reno Dance Party," where the Attorney General was played by Will Ferrell in drag. It ran a few times, and at the end of the Clinton Administration, it had a "final episode" that actually featured Janet Reno. She was essentially saying "I'm in on the joke," but the joke is really "Janet Reno is an ugly man."
Is this how women should handle this? What do you think?
To me, the response to things like this should be to celebrate female role models. I've done this a few times on this blog before - I think it might be time for another installment.
As a science fan and a PR guy, when I see something like this video - where contestants from the Miss USA 2011 pageant answer the question "should evolution be taught in schools?" - I really cringe.
If you are a science fan and you sat through this entire video then kudos to you. (Actually the answer from Miss Vermont was rather good.)
Let's get something clear from the get-go here. Evolution is real. It's sound science and it must be taught in public schools. Myriad advances in health and science derive directly from evolutionary biology. It's not a secular alternative to the Bible. You don't "believe" in evolution any more than you "believe" in gravity. If you're reading this and you're a person of a particular faith and you're offended by this, I'm sorry - but you're wrong. The sound science of evolution isn't encroaching on your faith, your faith is encroaching on sound, provable, evidence-based science and when you try to take evolution out of classrooms you're only making things worse.
But let me make something else clear: I think the Miss USA contestants were set up for failure. As I understand it, the goal of a contestant in a preliminary interview competition isn't to advocate for science or religion or anything else - it's to sound reasonably pleasant and articulate and avoid offending the judges. I don't think it's fair to expect a woman in her early- to mid-20's to speak competently and at length to the pedagogic merits of evolutionary biology if that isn't something she's studied. If you were in your early twenties, and you were put on the spot about a controversial issue you hadn't studied in depth, and you assumed you were talking to a group of people who had different opinions, chances are you'd come out where most of these women did - "present both sides fairly and let people decide."
As someone in PR, that's a very recognizable phrase. Nearly everyone agrees with that blanket statement. Give people the right to choose. Present both sides fairly. If you're against those statements on just about any issue, you're typically seen as an elitist or worse. You're positioned as the person who doesn't want people to have their views heard and you're not interested in a fair debate. PR folks like me recommend taking this tack in a messaging strategy for clients all the time.
This is where many scientists see themselves today on important issues like evolution, climate change, and vaccination. Scientists point to the data and say the debate is over - those with interests on the other side take advantage of the fact that the issues are still not well known to everyone, and align themselves with consensus-claiming, PR-driven statements. They're just trying to be heard and they want a fair shake.
So scientists and science communicators find themselves right on the facts but wrong in the eyes of the public. So they sometimes resort to mocking:
Personally I think it's pretty funny. And it probably wasn't produced for the purpose of changing minds. But mocking beauty pageant contestants - as good as that may feel for some - doesn't really help. A lot of people think pageants are silly, but a lot of other people really like them. And we're trying to reach everyone.
Perhaps it makes sense to do some outreach to the contestants, give them some education, help them understand the issue, and then let them be great messengers and advocates for science?
I'm very pleased to share that I've been invited to contribute a weekly link post to Science Cheerleader. I've mentioned Darlene Cavalier on this blog before - she's a passionate advocate for science literacy and citizen participation in science, she's an entrepreneur, and she's a writer. She explains why she founded the site:
...to unite the citizen’s desire to be heard and valued, the scientist’s growing interest in the public’s involvement, and government’s need to garner public support. The Science Cheerleader serves to get the conversation going, rally the troops, solicit views from all sides and change the tone of science and science policy in this country.
The site's name plays on her former role as a cheerleader for the Philadelphia 76ers and her advocacy for scientists and science generally. She's working to break down stereotypes of all kinds - things like "science is for nerds" or "pretty girls are stupid."
I met Darlene at ScienceOnline 2010 where she launched Science For Citizens, a website designed to connect researchers with non-researchers to collaborate on engaging and important scientific projects. Science For Citizens was accepted the Good Company Ventures business incubator program just a few months ago, and I'm confident you'll be hearing a lot more about this project. Darlene is also the motivating force behind ECAST, Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology. In a way, ECAST is an attempt to resurrect and modernize the government's Office of Technology Assessment, something my old boss wanted to do very much.
Darlene and I have talked a bit about advocating for science in communities where it isn't necessarily front and center. I think my role on Science Cheerleader is my first step. I read a lot of science writing daily (it's actually part of my job), and I'll be sharing links to things that are engaging and don't require a PhD in some multi-syllabic discipline to understand. I also plan to engage some of my friends in spreading the word in other communities about this great science writing. Darlene and I have been working with some other people on somewhat more ambitious projects with similar goals, and we'll be rolling them out soon, but I think we agree it makes sense to take it one step at a time.
So I hope you'll take a look at Science Cheerleader - some very smart and engaging people have been contributing there long before I came around - and I hope you take a look at the links. They'll be published on Wednesdays.
UPDATE:Seems this post got some attention, thanks to links and tweets from Bora. (I like Bora a lot.) And folks aren't happy with me. Someone even went as far as dusting off the old fallacy of moral equivalence - I think communities who care about how they are perceived have an obligation to do outreach, so apparently I think women who dress in suggestive clothing shouldn't be surprised if they are raped. The only thing that argument does is trivialize rape, and sadly, those comments sorta prove Heffernan's point.
Here's the point that perhaps I could have made more clear - we all know someone took an unfair shot at the science blogging community. Science bloggers have a choice - they can call that person stupid, or they can view this unfair shot as a fabulous PR opportunity.
What would happen, for example, if Heffernan were invited as a speaker at ScienceOnline2011? Would science bloggers throw tomatoes at her? Or would they take the time and demonstrate the patience to calmly, rationally, educate her on their community and what it offers? Isn't that a better strategy and wouldn't that create a better outcome? And wouldn't that encourage more people to read science blogs?
What did the Washington Nationals do with Miss Iowa this week? They took a PR turd and created a nice opportunity to bridge a cultural divide. Basically the same deal here.
I've been kicking an idea around with somegreatbloggersfromdifferentcommunities on exactly this issue. I hope the folks who have commented on this post will be willing to join us when it's ready - Nothing would make me happier...
I read with interest Virginia Heffernan's piece in NYT Magazine over the weekend, giving her spin on the whole SciBling exodus thing. Frankly, I'm about done with the meta-discussion and kinda want to get back to reading good stuff about science too. But there were a couple of things in her piece that made me scratch my head. First:
I was nonplussed by the high dudgeon of the so-called SciBlings. The bloggers evidently write often enough for ad-free academic journals that they still fume about adjacencies, advertorial and infomercials. Most writers for “legacy” media like newspapers, magazines and TV see brush fires over business-editorial crossings as an occupational hazard. They don’t quit anytime there’s an ad that looks so much like an article it has to be marked “this is an advertisement.”
I'm pretty sure the issue was that the "ad" needed the disclaimer but didn't actually have it. I'm also pretty sure there would be a few defections from the "legacy" media types if content at NYT was for sale.
The other item, though, got me thinking a bit.
What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats.
My first reaction was simple and snarky: "of course we've never seen 'incendiary rhetoric' from, say, the New York Times op-ed page." And then I thought Ms. Heffernan isn't reading the same blogs I am because I see plenty of good science there all the time. Ms. Heffernan is clearly smart enough to know she's painting a community with a rather broad brush. David Dobbs sorta shrugged this criticism off - "this is neither novel nor surprising."
But then I thought maybe the science blogging community, rather than taking offense, might get beyond the over-generalization and take her comments to heart a little bit - especially if they want to be taken more seriously by people outside their own community.
Right now the most prominent voices in the science blogging community - at least in terms of "share of voice" - are probably PZ Myers and a guy who calls himself "Orac" (though his real name isn't hard to find.). Thanks to all the ScienceBlogs defections, Myers probably accounts for more than half of all the traffic on that network. I read their blogs regularly and I know they're both very smart. I'm pretty sure neither of them presume to speak for an entire community. But to put it kindly neither onepulls punches. They can be downright NASTY. Of course they have a right to be nasty, and frankly I personally think their targets deserve to be called out in some way, though my style is a bit different.
But here's the thing: the scientists and science writers/bloggers I talk with care very much about how they are perceived beyond their own community. They are concerned about the waning influence scientists have on policy, on public opinion, and on culture. At the same time, they think they have a critical job as "media." If you care about your role in media and how you're perceived, you should think about how the most prominent voices in your community "represent" you.
When people outside the scienceblogging community think of science blogs, they think of PZ Myers and Orac. And if they don't have the back story, they are not likely to get beyond the most provocative things these two have published. And they're going to react the way Heffernan did. By the way, Heffernan has a PhD in English Literature from Harvard. PZ Myers reacted to her column by writing a blog post tagged "stupidity."
I have some personal experience here. When I spoke at ScienceOnline2010, I asked people to work with me on reaching out to other bloggers in other communities. In doing so, I delivered a message that wasn't all that well received - it's hard to convince someone to reconsider a position when you're calling them a dick. And let's face it - the most popular blogs on that network devote much of their time calling people dicks.
It's not my place to tell PZ Myers or Orac or anyone else what they should publish on their own blog. And I'd bet Myers and Orac would be the first people to say they don't presume to speak for anyone but themselves. (I'd even be willing to bet they're probably nice guys.) But I know this - the scienceblogging community cares a lot about what people outside their community think of them, yet they do very little real outreach. Of course there's a place for provocative thought and for these two great writers - but the scientists and bloggers who want to be known for their own thoughts and their own work have to do more to make sure they're not drowned out by the loudest voices.
A consensus seems to be developing among science bloggers that says "if Heffernan knew us, she wouldn't have written that." I say if science bloggers took the time to introduce themselves and their work to people outside their own community - people like Heffernan - she would have known you.
In case you never heard of the term, I looked it up.
book Pronunciation: \ˈbu̇k\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bōc; akin to Old High German buoh book, Gothic boka letter Date: before 12th century 1 a: a set of written sheets of skin or paper or tablets of wood or ivory b: a set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together into a volume c: a long written or printed literary composition d: a major division of a treatise or literary work
It's great to see someone you like and respect have success. Susan Getgood not only has the best name in social media marketing, she's also very smart. She put together a valuable and clear guide for people who want to write, publish online, and maybe make a little coin while they're at it. Susan sets herself from competitors by being an effective advocate for bloggers - as a co-founder of Blog With Integrity and the author of i-don't-know-how-many posts on how (and how not) brands and bloggers should interact, she really sets the standard for the rest of us.
In addition to the bloggers many people knew she'd highlight in the book - smart, entrepreneurial moms like Liz, Kristen, Julie, Joanne, Devra & Aviva, Mir, and a bunch of others - I was very pleased that she went beyond the mom-o-sphere and looked at some pals of mine like Chris, Preston & Jeff. The book blends the case studies with the useful advice quite well, and it's worth a read for anyone who wants to do this social media stuff for real.
So for all you people who have been bugging me to post something - oh, wait, that didn't happen.
The past week has been crazy busy and the next week will be as well - in the near future I do hope to write something about the paper and the Washington Post op-ed Chris Mooney wrote and the responses he's gotten from some science and enviro blogger types. Chris' blogging partner, Sheril Kirshenbaum, added her two cents as well, and placed additional emphasis on the public policy implications here.
I think the discussion is very important - and I find it interesting that among all of the comments, there are very few from people who actually develop and implement communications strategies that are designed to influence public policy. I guess I sorta wouldn't mind being that guy...
One of the biggest complaints I had about the previous administration was its hostility toward science on everything from climate change to sex education to stem cell research. Scientific reports were edited and censored to conform to a political agenda. Scientists were marginalized. These guys were "creating their own reality," and facts weren't simply inconvenient, they were irrelevant. There's a book all about it.
So when I see something like this it makes my blood boil. Scientists are apparently being told by a government agency (in this case, NOAA) that any data from the gulf oil spill they collect while on that agency's boats may only be publicized with that agency's permission. The debate right now is over the existence of huge subsurface plumes of oil - a group of scientists (including these folks - GO DAWGS) have collected data that suggests the size, location and density of these plumes, while BP's CEO says flatly "there are no plumes." Right now the head of NOAA is calling the scientists' data "circumstantial."
I'm not a scientist, so let's just assume these oil plumes, if they exist, are probably "bad."
I really don't have a problem with the NOAA head being careful and hesitant to come to any conclusions on the plumes - the language of science is typically cautious, focusing on limitations and generally leaving open the possibility of error. (Yet another PR challenge for scientists.) But I strongly believe that if government wants to regain trust - particularly when it comes to issues of science - they need to err on the side of sharing, not concealing. Here's why.
Scientists share data. It's what they do. They collect data, analyze it, and then publish it. That's essentially the entire job. Telling a scientist to stop sharing data is like telling a Red Sox fan to stop chanting "Yankees Suck." Social media has helped scientists share data faster and more effectively than ever before. Seriously, look at what the folks at Georgia and the University of South Florida and LSU and Southern Mississippi are doing. It's amazing stuff. Then look more generally at what platforms like the Public Library of Science's PLOS One can do, providing open access to scientific research and then promoting that research. No matter how hard you try to hide, say, a massive undersea oil plume - these folks are gonna find it and let others know.
Now of course the old political axiom "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" comes into play. RULE NUMBER ONE in PR: NEVER LIE. Nothing good ever comes of it. The truth reveals itself one drip at a time, and you just look like the guy who can't plug a massive leak.
I'm going to tread carefully here because I love reading Respectful Insolence. The blog's author, who goes by the pseudonym "Orac," is ridonkulous-smart, obviously passionate, and above all, not one to mess with. I'm also going to stress that the following represents my personal opinion, has nothing to do with work. (I have worked in the past for pharmaceutical company clients; not doing anything with them currently.)
Orac spends a lot of his time mocking the anti-science crowd, as is his right. He's quite good at it. He does so from his perch at Scienceblogs, which according to their own marketing data is read mostly by scientists (or at least people with graduate degrees and people who manage scientific projects). He's apparently gotten some criticism that he's simply talking to other scientists when he makes his arguments - that he's "preaching to the converted" and this helps no one. I've made a somewhat similar argument, though I've never called out Orac specifically:
Science has a serious PR problem, and it's this: Critics of science are searching people out and talking with them in the simplest terms possible. Scientists and "science writers," if they talk at all, are basically talking with each other.
So I was interested in his response, which you should read but is summed up like this:
When I hear such charges now, I think I'll just refer the one doing the complaining to this video:
Let me stress Orac is under no obligation to be a Science Ambassador. It's not his job to move the public opinion needle. He can write whatever he wants, and I'll probably read it and nod my head and smile. But given that he made this response, I assume he's at least interested in the issue.
I realize this response wasn't made personally for me. But it oversimplifies the criticism. First, who assumes there's only "agree and disagree?" It's precisely because there are so many people in the middle that I think Science's PR problem is so tragic. (oh, and the little bit in the video making a play on the word "converted" evaporates if you prefer the term I sometimes use, "preaching to the choir.")
This video is a curious defense of homophily. Of course it's good to have discussions within one's own community. Of course it's good to galvanize ideas and sentiment and rally the base - it just can't be the only thing you do. (See "Palin, Sarah.")
The thing that irked me the most about the video (and I realize this isn't Orac's original material) is this idea that posting material online "makes it available" so people can see it when they're ready to change their opinions or accept new information.
Sorry, this is a cop-out. Again, no one is forcing Orac or anyone else to be an Ambassador. But if he cares about "moving the needle" in the public, he's smart enough to know this isn't how diplomacy works. The anti-science cranks of the world aren't waiting around for people to find them. As Orac points out, they're showing up on Huffington Post and Oprah and daily news shows - you know, where the people are. And they're listening to people and communicating in terms that resonate. (And by the way, they're pushing their new book or their new line of organic herb supplements that remove "toxins" or cancer-curing magnets, which could be yours for just 4 easy payments of $29.95 but supplies are limited so ACT NOW!)
The whole premise of the argument is based on the notion that people outside Orac's circle are either already getting his information, or will actively seek it out and know where to find it in the future. That's just not how communication and persuasion works. You don't convince people that a particular treatment for a disease is important simply by publishing an article in JAMA. It's just the first step.
Calling the other side a bunch of quacks probably feels good. Using scientific data to show why they're quacks probably feels good too. And if that's all you want to do, that's fine. I'll keep reading it.
If you're interested in more, you have to get out and find those people in the middle (we know they're not reading scienceblogs and they're not likely to look for scienceblogs) and listen to their concerns and understand their motivation and explain your position in terms that are relevant and understandable. You have to get out of your comfort zone a little.
Liz Gumbinner wrote again about the morons in my business. Seems the Cool Mom Picks team put together a comprehensive, four-month advertising proposal for a company, and the company rejected it because, you know, they'd have to pay for the ads.
I'll try to make this simple. If they're important enough for your brand to be there, buy the damn ad.
If you think you're gonna get a halfway-decent blogger to promote your stuff for nothing more than a link or some free yogurt or something, you sound more stupid and disrespectful than the "chickens for health care" candidate.
One of these days a blogger is going to call you by name. And once that happens, you're toast.
UPDATE: Less than 5 minutes after this posted, I got an email from a political blogger pal of mine. He got an email from a PR flack asking him to write about an online advertising company's new online advertising product. For free. And then he got a follow up "reminder" email from them. That's right - an advertising company with such faith in its ads that it tries to avoid paying for ads.
A while back I wrote about the "scariest mobile application EVAH," Good Guide. It's a leader in a new and growing field of mobile applications that use barcode-scanning technology, GPS, and a variety of databases to tell consumers about the product they just scanned. These applications give consumers unprecedented information about products, brands, manufacturers, retailers, and pretty much anything else at the point of purchase. They include the popular Red Laser, which lets you compare prices among stores in your area and online, and Label Lookup, a production of the Natural Resources Defense Council that helps you "find labels you can trust."
Tech-savvy and issue-conscious consumers will be getting information not only about how a given product is a buck cheaper down the road or online, but also anything a database of that consumer's choosing says about the product, brand, or company. And remember, this information comes just moments before the point of purchase, giving the company almost no time to share its side of the story. So when I tried Good Guide I learned that the makers of my breakfast cereal "violated the Clean Water Act." I never got a link to the company's explanation.
So think about the databases out there. Think about current events and politics. It's not just review sites/apps like Yelp (dealing with a somewhat iffy reputation lately). It's not hard to imagine a mobile app that tells you:
If the CEO of the company that made a product contributed to Proposition 8 (Human Rights Campaign could probably tell you)
If the manufacturer is headquartered in Arizona, where you can now be pulled over for looking Hispanic (I'm thinking National Council of La Raza might be interested)
If a company is a "union buster" (just a matter of time before SEIU launches this bad boy)
Class action lawsuits filed against a company (ATLA, anyone?)
Building a comprehensive, accurate, and huge database for mobile apps to access takes time, talent, and resources. Even the Red Laser database isn't all-encompassing. However, it's not nearly as hard as it used to be. Some database developers may sacrifice a bit of accuracy to get more volume or speed. Some will probably be built by crowdsourcing - my favorite crowdsourced database comes from the brainiacs at Cornell who helped put the Great Backyard Bird Count online. In the not-too-distant future, government databases will be accessible from your phone - a company's EDGAR filings with the SEC, actions brought by the EPA, and so on.
So there are a few things companies should be doing YESTERDAY to protect their reputations and their brands:
Upgrade your social media monitoring efforts to see what's written about you in all these mobile-accessed databases. Good Guide is a start. Make sure the info is accurate. Contact them if it's not.
Build relationships with the folks who make these databases and these apps. Understand their motivation, work with them to make sure you're presented in the best possible light.
Partner with credible organizations to build your own databases and applications. Support some of these groups by underwriting some of the cost, providing technical support, and letting them know they can work with you.
Promote responsible efforts to give consumers all the information they want and need to make smart decisions. Consumers reward the companies that advocate for them.
Or, sit back and wonder why people stopped buying your stuff.
I first learned about Leah Peterson doing research for a social media client a few years ago. I was trying to find women bloggers who would be interested in participating in a conference call with Gloria Steinem. (Yes, THAT Gloria Steinem. It really wasn't that hard.)
If you read Leah's blog you learn very quickly that she's really up front about her mental illness. She shares a lot of details. And I have to admit I was a little nervous about inviting her to the call. We were putting a high-profile client in a public setting, and we would be giving access to someone who wrote frequently about multiple personalities, drug addiction, and worse.
But here's the thing: it was quite clear the other moms knew her well. They all linked to her blog and said very nice things about her. I remember she featured interviews of other bloggers - and that's where I got the idea for the sidebar on the right. She was a full-fledged, credible member of an online community. She wrote a reasonably prominent blog. The only reason we'd be excluding her was her health status, and that's just wrong. So we invited her.
The conference call went well - the women asked great questions, and Gloria Steinem gave great answers. So, happy little PR flack that I am, I went to the blogs to see if the women would write about it. And I saw a post on every woman's personal blog except one - Leah's.
Turns out Leah published her piece on The Huffington Post. You know, that blog with the millions of visitors. So from a PR perspective, she went from being a "risky" choice to being an absolute no-brainer.
I kept in touch with Leah over the years, as any halfway-decent social media flack would - not as much as I keep in touch with some bloggers, but every now and then. I saw her at BlogHer '07 in Chicago and thanked her for the post she wrote. I wrote about a project she was working on called Real Mental. A couple of months ago she sent me a note out of the blue, asking me to contribute some stuff to her new magazine, LP Creative Humans, so I did.
And now I learn she's a consultant for Showtime's Emmy-winning series, The United States of Tara. She's doing it to help educate people about mental illness, get people talking about it, and reduce stigma. Not too shabby, huh?
We interrupt Copen-fest 2K9 to remind everyone that today is UN Anticorruption Day. Normally I'm not a huge fan of naming "days" after causes but if the organizations involved actually back up words with real action they deserve attention. This is one such effort.
My colleagues and I have been working with the World Bank and the United Nations to reach out to bloggers to talk about efforts to fight corruption worldwide. A couple of days ago we had the first of what I hope will be many online events that will help build relationships among online advocates and UN & World Bank staff to join forces in this effort.
Corruption is one of the major obstacles in fighting global poverty. You can help raise awareness by adding a badge to your website or blog (available in several langauges) - or embedding this video.
OK, so Associated Press wants to charge bloggers (and others) for using as few as five words of their stories, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is talking about removing their content from Google's search services.
Good luck with that.
Now I'm wondering how much those organizations will be compensating the people they interview and other sources for their contributions to "original" content. Information published by AP and News Corp. is a finished product with a set financial value. And all finished products have raw materials. And all makers of finished products pay for those raw materials. It's incomprehensible that the value chain begins and ends with the publisher.
Oh, and guess which website journalists go to first when conducting research for their stories?
I suppose AP stringers could be equipped with waivers for their sources to sign. They'd say something like "I hereby cede all ownership and authority of the information I provide to [insert publisher here], and grant said publisher any and all power to restrict access to this information from those unwilling or unable to pay for it."
Kinda wondering what would happen if Facebook put something like that in their terms of service.
