Unleashing my inner broad

I'm pleased to announce that I'm now a contributor to The Broad Side, a new online project led by the PunditMom herself, Joanne Bamberger. As I've written before Joanne is the author of the book Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America and she's an amazing female role model.   From the founder's welcome:

The mission of The Broad Side is to gather women who are writing about the most-discussed and important issues of the day from a fresh perspective, not in that stale, wonky, inside-the-Washington, D.C.-beltway kind of narrative.

While The Broad Side will mostly be a place to showcase all the women’s commentary that those talking head shows and op-ed pages are missing, we’ll definitely invite some men to contribute, as well. 

Joanne's project is a critical and long overdue addition to the American political discussion.  She features intelligent and articulate voices who haven't been corrupted by the beltway culture - people who care much more about policy options than political brinksmanship.  Joanne also refuses to let Washington continue to ignore a simple truth - women's voices simply aren't heard in politics as much as they should.  (by the way, you can hear Joanne's voice, talking politics with me here.)

I'm very pleased and proud to be one of Joanne's first contributors and I'm also pleased that my first Broad Side post focuses on another impressive female role model - Darlene Cavalier, the Science Cheerleader.  I'm looking forward to watching Joanne's continued success and I'll be heading over to The Broad Side often - I hope you will too.

Science, politics and PR: I'm a broken record

My science communication posts as a text cloud

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.

Science has a serious PR problem
Science bloggers discussing scientists discussing science blogs
Orac, mockery, and the absence of outreach
Making science relevant
Science, politics, PR, and social media
Science PR... missing the point
Science needs a strategy
BREAKING: bloggers are misunderstood
So what do you do about it?
My free PR advice to scientists: it's not just about media training
Why science blogs give me hope
Bonnie Tyler's words live on
Ending isolationism in politics, science and social media: the battle for mom
When "rapid response" isn't enough
Science Cheerleader and the brouhaha
Getting serious about climate PR
#scio11: what's next for science online?
Climate change and strategic communications
The Science-to-English dictionary doesn't include the words "fuck off"
#scimom reflections
Beauty pageant contestants vs. science advocates: this isn't helpful
Evolutionary diplomacy
Science has a politics problem
Science has a politics problem, continued
FIRST: "Science is accessible for me."

Protecting yourself vs. owning your words

Much has been said recently about the Google+ "purge" of accounts that don't include real names and the similar Facebook policy and statements to that effect. As a PR guy and political wonk, I may have a slightly different take than many on this issue - while I certainly see the value and importance of protecting one's privacy, I think we must consider the (perhaps unintended) consequences of trumpeting the freedom of anonymity.  Specifically we have to be careful about insisting on transparency from some while preserving anonymity for others - particularly when the identity in question has the goal of influencing the behavior of others.

First, the case against the "real names" policy.  Alexis Madrigal at The Atlantic says bluntly,

The kind of naming policy that Facebook and Google Plus have is actually a radical departure from the way identity and speech interact in the real world.

You should read the whole thing.  The most compelling defense of anonymity or pseudonymity on the web that I found came from Danah Boyd:

The people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power. “Real names” policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people. These ideas and issues aren’t new (and I’ve even talked about this before), but what is new is that marginalized people are banding together and speaking out loudly. And thank goodness.

Emphasis hers, and also worth a read.  So there are certainly times when masking one's identity provides a certain amount of comfort, or security, or freedom.  Mandating your identity strikes many as akin to "papers, please."

But what if the person who wants to be anonymous is actually someone working for Facebook, trying to pitch a story that criticizes Google?  Or the CEO of Whole Foods posing as someone else on the Yahoo Finance message boards to criticize a competitor (and hopefully talk down its stock price) before trying to buy it?  Or some random white American guy living in Scotland, pretending to be a lesbian blogger in Syria who gets arrested after protesting the government?  It seems to me that in these instances anonymity is, in Boyd's words, an assertion of power over vulnerable people.

Again, I'm not so comfortable with "transparency for you, anonymity for me." Because while the examples above are reasonably obvious, it's not always clear who has power and who doesn't.  I really ruffled the feathers of some anonymity advocates when I saw some bashing Darlene Cavalier's attempts to bring science mainstream:

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.

I felt somewhat vindicated a month later when journalist Steve Silberman said in a ScienceOnline 2011 panel discussion "you can't call bullshit if you're anonymous." He clearly meant it as a journalist, but I think he also believes "unnamed sources" often deserve a stricter level of scrutiny.

Are Google and Facebook imposing "real name" policies because they suit their commercial interests?  Of course they are. Can anonymity protect the abused from the abuser?  Of course it can, and people have a right to publish under a pseudonym.  I'm not suggesting you be required to give your real name to anyone.  Let's just remember that a certain amount of credibility comes with full disclosure and sometimes it's very, very important to know the names behind the words.

What she said

I've tried twice to explain how the big tech companies have disproportionate (and often morally questionable) influence over our culture and our commerce.  Rebecca MacKinnon comes from a different perspective but she did a much better job explaining it than I did.

Off the Cuff visits Raleigh Denim: social media at its best

Victor Lytvinenko of Raleigh Denim (L) and Chris Hogan

Last week my family got a visit from Chris Hogan's family.  We have known each other for years and I'm fortunate to call them great friends.

Chris is also founder and editor of Off the Cuff, one of the most prominent men's fashion blogs you'll find.  He's often featured in mainstream publications as an expert. His work in social media is a well-recognized case study of best practices. So as one might expect, when we firmed up the details of his visit Chris sent out a tweet to his followers:

"Heading to Raleigh, NC, in a few weeks. Looking for some stores/brands to check out, visit. Suggestions?"

Not surprisingly, he got a number of people suggesting he visit the proprietors of Raleigh Denim, one of the last  places in America where jeans (and some other items) are made by hand, all under one roof.  You can find their clothes in elite stores like Barneys New York.  They're not cheap, but they're not cheap, if you know what I mean. So Chris reached out to the owners and arranged a visit, and (after burgers and beers) he let me tag along.

When we arrived on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, founders/owners Victor and Sarah Lytvinenko were busy putting together denim bags for shipment. Victor took us around the shop and I assumed "fly on the wall" status as  Chris talked with him about his approach to making clothes and the company's story.

And it's a great story.  Victor is a rare blend of artist and entrepreneur.  He loved that schools in the Raleigh area were producing students with great ideas about textiles but lamented the fact that very few of those students were ever able to bring ideas to market.

He also talked about trying to start the business in late 2009 and early 2010, one of the worst economic environments in our history.  Family members were pitching in and they were working around the clock, making samples and trying to convince stores to carry their product.  After finally managing to send a small order to Barneys, he received a request for a larger order, but didn't have the capital to buy raw materials or tools to accommodate them.  Since the economy was in the depths of the credit crunch, no bank would lend him the money.  Then President Obama's stimulus package became law - and Victor soon after got a call from the bank, telling him he could get that loan.  Now Victor and Sarah aren't worrying about growing their business - they're worrying about growing it too quickly.

Most of the afternoon, however, was spent talking about the craftsmanship, history, and philosophy that goes into making clothes at Raleigh Denim.  It was clear from the outset that Victor and Chris were of the same mind on this - other than jotting down a few numbers, Chris didn't really have to take notes because it was all obvious to him.  Once Chris got home he wrote and published a great blog post that summarizes his takeaways from the visit.   He also sent out a tweet that suggested a potential new partner and opportunity:

Someone please explain why @jcrew_insider isn't knocking on @raleighdenim 's door? Amazing jeans, made like we used to make 'em in America.

This is how social media often works best - a person reaches out to a network for ideas, acts on those ideas, and develops more ideas that can benefit more people.  The fact that Chris used specific tools was secondary to the experience - what really mattered is that Chris reached out to people who were part of a community, and that he leveraged online relationships to accomplish a goal.

That's why he's better than you at this.

All you sucka sci blog networks better REALIZE you play for second place

Bora launched his blog network at Scientific American.  He took his time, did it right.

Don't get me wrong - I love the writing at Wired Science, ScienceBlogs.com, Discover, Scientopia, Guardian Science Blogs, Nature Network, PLoS Blogs, and so on - but Bora was really smart about this. He saw the growth in the niche, looked at what was working best, saw what could improve, and just plain NAILED IT:

Another thing I was particularly interested in was to find bloggers who in some way connect the “Two Cultures” as described by C.P.Snow. Some connect science to history, philosophy, sociology or ethics. Many are very interested in science education, communication and outreach. Some make connections between science and popular culture, music, art, illustration, photography, cartoons/comic strips, poetry, literature, books, movies, TV, video, etc. Several produce such cross-discipline and cross-cultural material themselves – at least two are musicians, two are professional photographers, several produce videos, two are professional artists, a couple are authors of multiple books, some produce their own blog illustrations. But there are also commonalities – they all have strong knowledge of their topic, they strictly adhere to the standards of scientific evidence, they are all very strong writers, and they are all enthusiastic to share their work with a broader audience. 

When I put together this group, with such diverse interests and styles, it was not surprising to discover that, without really having to try hard to make it so, they also display diversity in many other areas: geography, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, personal/professional/scientific background and more. This is something that is important for science, and is important in the science blogging world.

This is brilliant for two big reasons: first, diversity is a source of enormous strength in science and pretty much everything else.  It's the right thing to do.  Second because it makes science immediately relevant to people with diverse interests - music, art, history, pop-culture, sports, education, and so on - the network has the capacity to grow its readership much more than other science blog networks.

My initial reaction is that SciAm's emergence with a large, smart roster may thin the herd of networks a little bit. I notice some writers have left their networks to join SciAm's, and since there are only so many blog posts you can read in a day, readers will go for the quality content first.

I may flesh this thinking out a bit more but here's one prediction/caution for those writing for another network. If you start to get several emails from your editors or managers providing "guidelines" on how to write in ways that generate more traffic like throwing celebrity references in the titles or providing more posts with repetitive phrases, your network is following an unsustainable strategy.  Your editors care more about Google search terms than you.  They want your words but not necessarily your thoughts.  The first network to do this will probably be the first one to go.

UPDATE: PZ Myers is already declaring ScienceBlogs.com "dead" and hinting that he's leaving.  Pharyngula is basically half of SEED/SB's traffic and I notice that the new SciAm network has at least a couple of SB peeps on it. I'm guessing the folks at National Geographic aren't pleased.  Leave it to an evolutionary biologist to tell us what happens when something doesn't adapt to a changing environment...

AMA vs. Photoshop: think of the children

This pic is everywhere now

Last week the American Medical Association officially condemned the "photoshopping" of models in fashion advertisements and magazines to make those models appear unrealistically thin.  While the "models are too skinny" debate has gone on for decades, this is a rare and important step.  Their stance is obviously more of a statement on our runaway culture of beauty than our use of technology, but it also should send a clear message to those of us in the communications business (marketing, advertising, or PR) - just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should.  Earlier this month I warned against pretending to be someone you're not. This is a similar principle - don't use deceptive images to promote your products.  This example demonstrates the consequences can extend beyond looking like a creep.

I'm not going to pretend to be the moral authority on these issues and I'm not going to say it's wrong to retouch a photo or get a nip and/or tuck if you want.  However, it seems the AMA believes things are getting worse, not better - and it's clear that technological advancements have enabled some people to take things to the extreme.

This issue reminds me of two other issues where some segments of the medical community have already weighed in but I wish the AMA would add its rather hefty and credible voice - promotion of breastfeeding and reducing the influence of pro-anorexia groups on social networks.  I've written about this before. People who freak out over nipples on breastfeeding pictures in Facebook profiles aren't simply advocating for more modesty, they're reducing our ability to promote breastfeeding - and that has negative health consequences.  Social networks like Facebook have made some progress on cleaning up pro-ana sites, but they're still around - and this is also a threat to public health.

Don't take my word for it - take my wife's.  She's the health researcher at the big-time university, and she wrote about both issues several years ago. Discouraging breastfeeding is bad.  Facilitating the harmful practices of people with anorexia is also bad. Of course, I look at the Facebook terms of service and I don't see anything in there that would address these issues. I'm not sure if other social networks have different terms.

Bottom line, there's an opportunity here for the AMA to get more involved in the online space. There's no question that our culture affects our behavior, and our behavior affects our health.  While we should be mindful of protecting free speech rights, we should be giving the medical community a larger voice here.

Beauty pageant contestants vs. science advocates: this isn't helpful

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've heard cheerleaders are pretty good at that...

"Closed" networks and cultural arbitration

Last week we saw the latest pothole in the road to Utopia for iTunes:

Apple Inc. says it has removed an application called "ThirdIntifada" from its App Store following complaints that it glorified violence against Israel.

Of course, when they say "removed" they could just as easily have said "approved and then had to be told this was one of the stupidest things imaginable."

I've already written how the "big four" tech companies - Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook - have made our lives amazingly easier and they have connected people in ways we could barely imagine just a few years ago.  But because those companies have understandably placed limits on those markets and marketplaces, and have tried to create some rules for entry, they've had to make a host of judgment calls about what gets in and what doesn't.   By fate or by design, we're now at a rather alarming point.  Middle-managers at tech companies are regularly policing free speech and global commerce, and occasionally wielding more power in a single mouse click than some foreign ministers could hope to wield in a term of office.

It's hard to define social networks and commerce platforms with hundreds of millions of users as "closed" - especially when the administrators of them want as many users as possible. But they do want to be the gatekeepers of speech and commerce, insisting on approving the software that appears on their platforms.  They are now they are forced to make judgment calls I'm certain they never anticipated.  The folks at Facebook did not intend to be the folks who determine "obscene" content, yet here they are, establishing the "visible aerola" standard for breastfeeding pictures.  Apple never intended to mediate the Arab-Israeli conflict or promote the idea of "praying away the gay" or help drivers avoid sobriety checkpoints.

There's no doubt in my mind that the more apps they approve, the more mistakes they'll make, and the more likely regulation with plenty of unintended consequences will appear.

Note to self: don't pretend to be a lesbian blogger in Syria.

One of the more prominent and unfortunate global news stories circulating today is the hoax perpetrated by Tom MacMaster, an American student currently living in Scotland.  For months he's published a blog called "A Gay Girl in Damascus" and assumed a fictional identity named Amina Abdallah Araf al Omani.

The blog included fascinating stories of politics, culture and intrigue.  There were breathless accounts of going into hiding, standing up to police, demonstrating in the streets, and assuming the voice of the opposition in one of the world's most closed off countries in the midst of this historic "Arab Spring."  There were detailed personal accounts of coming out as a lesbian in a highly conservative, highly religious country.  Then there was the gripping note that Amina had been captured.  The stories rallied thousands and Amina became a heroine.

And it was all fake.

Of course, while he seems to think he hasn't really done much wrong, smarter people like Ethan Zuckerman beg to differ with him. Zuckerman is the founder of Global Voices Online, one of my favorite sites on the 'net and a global aggregator of citizen-journalist-generated content.   Zuckerman's take is a thorough smackdown and well worth reading, and here's just one of his points:

MacMaster’s project is going to complicate the work of anyone who tries to bring marginal voices into the dialog through citizen media. The question I’ve been most often asked since founding Global Voices is a question about authenticity: “How can we know that any of these people blogging and tweeting are real people?”

As a PR guy, my inclination is often to spin the upside - MacMaster has managed to do one thing no one else has.  The downside, of course, is that "one thing" is "add credibility to the government of Syria," as they denied ever holding Amina.

Perhaps it shouldn't amaze me that people still ignore or forget a very basic rule of public relations - don't pretend to be someone you're not.   Doing so essentially guarantees that whatever message you're trying to send gets lost.  This example is perhaps a bit more colorful, and a bit more tragic, but it's not even the only incident in recent memory. In my business we see companies all the time who want certain messages or facts to "get out there" but don't feel confident speaking in their own voice, often with good reason. All I can say is it's not often you can be successful making a point without telling people who you are.

What upsets me most right now is MacMaster's protestations that coverage of his hoax is drawing attention from real people facing real crises in Syria.  That he fails to understand he was the one drawing attention from the real conflict by hijacking Syrians' voices is beyond ironic.

When tech companies become cultural arbiters

Confronting the threat of "visible areolas" on Facebook

Facebook imposed another creepy "feature" - facial recognition technology - on its users without saying much about it.  It was another relatively quiet encroachment on personal privacy in the name of providing more value to marketers.  An (ironically) anonymous Facebook spokesperson apologized for "the way it was rolled out," but three days later everyone was pretty much back to business.

To me it was the latest warning signal that we're ceding too much of our lives to people whose values work exceptionally well for a successful company but create significant problems in other facets of our lives.

There's no question that companies such as Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft have changed the way millions (if not billions) of people live their lives.  Many of the innovative products and services they've created (or acquired) have made profound improvements to our quality of life.  We've gotten to the point where fast and easy access to the services provided by these and similar companies is a social justice issue.

These companies create a relatively minuscule amount of original content - instead they make it easier for others to create, find, consume, organize, enhance, and share that content.  As millions upon millions of people use their networks and their services, these companies aren't simply helping us create an "online version" of our culture, they're an integral and increasingly significant portion of our actual culture.  And in doing so, these four companies have become our cultural arbiters by default.

They decide who can find your content and how. They decide if you can earn a living in an online business and how. They decide if you can share certain information and how. And arguably they sometimes even decide if you can OWN your own content and how.

I think it's fair to say for the most part they've done an amazing job.  Every day millions of people create and share trillions of pieces of information across the platforms these four companies have created, and it's a fast and easy process.  Every day millions of people move billions if not trillions of dollars across the commerce platforms they've created, creating economic opportunities for people who had no chance of profiting from their ideas just a few years ago.  I wouldn't be able to write this blog post and you wouldn't be able to read it, comment, or share it without these companies.

Further, I look at the values these companies promote and it looks like a recipe for success.  Things like:

• Pursuing relentless, even dogmatic, measures to protect intellectual property rights. 
• Demonstrating passionate loyalty to customers, and always striving to do more for them.
• Creating products and platforms that are so good they become the standard everyone uses.
• Innovating at breakneck speed - get the it to market first, and fix it later.
• Embracing the "social" - err on the side of sharing and let users tell you if they don't want something.
• Automating solutions to complicated problems - save time and money. 

But while Facebook embraces the social they reject the personal.  It's clear that the privacy of Facebook users takes a distant back seat to the revenue potential of their marketing data. Facebook is constantly thinking of ways to serve its customers - the companies who want to know what you do so they can sell more effectively.   So Facebook develops ideas that provide marketers with knowledge about you without your knowledge or specific consent.  They'll apologize afterward, but they'll never stop imposing "features" that sometimes blow up in their faces (remember Beacon?) and forcing users to opt-out rather than opt-in because that would limit their value to customers. Resultingly, we've seen the emergence of a new form of moral hazard. Since users aren't the actual customers of Facebook and they have incomplete knowledge of the consequences of their actions, they make decisions they may not otherwise make.

And ask Ars Technica what it thinks about Facebook's approach to intellectual property - all you have to do is claim a site has taken your content and that site is suspended.  You apparently don't even have to reveal your own identity.  The burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser.  That's not how it works in our courtrooms, but that's apparently how it works on Facebook, and possibly on Google's YouTube.  It appears the suspension is automatic - kill the site and then review the situation when the company's amazingly small and no doubt overburdened staff has a chance to get to it.

Of course there are the many times Facebook has automatically suspended accounts for posting "obscene" pictures of breastfeeding moms.  Years ago I noted the irony of scrapping those accounts while protecting the "free speech" rights of pro-anorexia Facebook groups that claimed the disease was a lifestyle choice and offered tips on which drugs to take to stave off hunger.   My wife told me that just last week Facebook did it again - closing down an account simply over an incorrect claim of obscenity.  I loved this line from a spokesperson (again apparently anonymous) the reporter quoted from 2008 - "we've made a visible areola the determining factor."  Actually, they've made the claim of a visible areola the determining factor.  Perhaps those who wanted to shut down pro-ana groups should have told Facebook they saw a nipple there.

I think Apple has handled this a bit better but has had its own challenges here as well - like when they allowed a religious organization access to their iTunes platform to distribute an app that promoted "ex-gay" conversion therapy.  Medical organizations have suggested conversion therapy is ineffective at best and harmful at worst.  Gay advocates noted the irony of placing age restrictions on some apps geared toward gay people but this was widely available to anyone.  It took a petition with 150,000 signatures to get Apple to reverse course.

Apple's issue really has been access to its commerce platform and the types of technology it will allow on its devices. Developers crow about how long it takes to get their applications accepted on iTunes.  Personally I don't have a huge problem with this - it means someone is actually looking at what's being presented on their platform.  Their house, their rules.  The problem comes when they want to be the "standard" - standards should offer the most choice possible, and iTunes doesn't.  Resultingly there are other, more open platforms that developers are increasingly choosing.  What I don't understand is Apple's take on "flash" animation technology.  Apparently using this technology in websites and the like places a greater burden on processors and drains the battery more quickly. So Apple won't support technology that reduces the performance level of iPhones and iPads. They're essentially trying to dictate what developers and website designers do on sites that have nothing to do with Apple. As a consumer, I think I'm more than capable of monitoring battery life, and I'm not sure how limiting the number of websites I can fully utilize helps Apple.  It's also arguably a restraint of trade issue - leveraging their dominance in one market (devices) to dictate the terms or channels of distribution of other markets.  Microsoft had those criticisms years ago.

The real risk is that one of these companies will (unintentionally) do something so stupid, so brazen, so outrageous that it will result in an enormous backlash and we'll see social networks and platforms regulated in ways that begin to resemble regulation of utilities.  Regulation can create as many unintended consequences as arbitrary and automated terms of service.

There's no silver bullet but there's one option I can think of that would be a good start - require anyone bringing a complaint such as copyright infringement or obscenity or anything else to confirm their identity and contact information. That shouldn't be too hard to implement, and it has worked in our justice system.  It would also likely reduce the number of embarrassing news stories we've seen over the years.

If you've read all the way to the end of this, I'd love to know what you think...

Buy PunditMom's book or I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN

Joanne "PunditMom" Bamberger has a book coming out called Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America.  You should buy it. And then you should read it.  And then you should do whatever Joanne tells you to do, because she's going to rule the world someday and you probably want to be on her good side now. (OK, kidding.)  (But not really.)

This book is important - and not simply because Joanne is more than qualified to write this book as an online mom with an impressive background in government and politics. (She was deputy director of communications at the Securities Exchange Commission, you know.)  It's important because she uses the book to amplify the voices of people the beltway chattering class too often ignore - "everyday" women from different walks of life in America. Seriously - read the essays Joanne compiled in the book and then think about what you see on cable "news" shows or hear on talk radio.

I've spent some time in DC myself, so I'm a bit cynical.  I hope the beltway crowd won't view this book and the perspectives of the women in it as an "I care about politics too" human interest story.  I hope they will take this book as a wake-up call.  I think Joanne and her contributors are telling the politicians (and their sycophants) that while the jobs they have are important, they're wasting everyone's time on irrelevant and potentially harmful flights of fancy.   Moms are life's true decision makers, and they don't have time to waste on distractions.  If moms have more input in political decisions, our politics will be more substantive and our policies will be more effective.

I hope you read this book - not simply because Joanne is someone I've known for years, or because she's helped me out with work from time to time.  I hope you read this book because we all need to do better at understanding what women want and what they care about - and not just for the purposes of selling moms stuff.  Finally, I hope you read this book because for me it's personal.  I was raised by a "pundit mom."  I'm married to another "pundit mom."  For years they've spoken up to help their families, and for as long as I can remember, strong political forces have been aligned against them.  Their actions have helped shape who I am.  In a very real sense, Joanne is speaking up for them and for all the pundit moms out there.

Oh, and the writers she features in the book are pretty amazing too.

What Women Want: The Interview

As I've mentioned I'm speaking Monday at the Alltech Game Changers Symposium.  (Alltech is a longstanding client.)  They initially asked me to talk about marketing to women online, but someone there (I still don't know who) decided to change the name of my presentation to "What Women Want." Then they booked me on a radio talk show.  For an hour.   I didn't know the audio could be recorded, but here it is - WVLK's Kruser and Krew talked with me and we got a couple of great callers. Sorry - this audio player apparently requires flash.

Please be gentle.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:

Cultural disconnects: how do you define beauty?

We start with Exhibit A:

Student groups at the London School of Economics are calling for the dismissal of a social scientist who has become embroiled in a racism row after claiming that a study showed black women to be less attractive than women of other races.

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the institution, published his comments on a blog and claimed he had analysed data from an online study of physical attractiveness.

In his article for Psychology Today, Kanazawa wrote: "Black women are … far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women." The piece drew a barrage of complaints from readers and has since been removed from the site.

So a researcher known for his penchant for controversy (he once wrote a piece suggesting liberals are smarter than conservatives) writes something stupid but it potentially starts a rather interesting, potentially cross-cultural conversation around an important question: "how do you define beauty?"

I looked at two of the online communities I review most - scientists and moms.  I found a mixed bag.

Hank Campbell at Science 2.0 issued a thorough smackdown of the Kanazawa piece (seriously, read it), but went a step further to slam Kanazawa's field of study:

But the real problem is not Kanazawa. Every discipline has someone who creates a goofy study. Others criticize it, science moves on. The problem is evolutionary psychology is chock full of this stuff and virtually no one inside the field is willing to police their own. Marc Hauser just got suspended for questionable practices. And now they have taken to fuzzy epigenetics to make the picture of the human condition even murkier.

He then lists a bunch of posts that illustrate his point.

Another reaction from a different community came from Karen Walrond at Chookooloonks.  She offered a more emotional (and in my view very impactful) response:



But here's the thing:  Walrond's response is one that Campbell dismisses.

I tried to look around for other perspectives, basically one that is not an old white guy like me or some shrill, lefty do-gooder reflexively saying how awesomely beautiful all women are...

And when I decided to try a little outreach here by linking to Walrond's video in Campbell's comments, he responded:

Saying all women are beautiful is saying none are, and that is just not the case. The great thing about diversity is that attraction and beauty are subjective. Anyone attempting to homogenize beauty into generic 'we all are' psychobabble for the other side - and cynically marketing themselves in their video in the process - isn't really any better than Kanazawa.

This comment illustrated the enormous gap between the two communities. First, Campbell clearly doesn't know Walrond.  She is adored in her community.  She is a powerful and positive force.  Those who know her best say she's essentially the opposite of cynical.  And she very clearly has a much different view of "beauty."   I asked Karen if she wanted to respond, and she was characteristically graceful in a series of tweets to me:

My response wasn't intended to be scientific - b/c (a) I'm not a scientist & (b) I don't think beauty is a science. I think beauty is an emotion. So arguing with a scientist about beauty at all is ridiculous. Besides, he's entitled to his own opinion on his own personal blog, I wager. ;) The underlying point of my response was to tell women not to buy into Kanazawa's crap. That's all.

So two very smart and accomplished people who essentially agree that Kanazawa's piece was lousy have profoundly different responses that reflect their respective communities and cultures.  Campbell's post strikes me as aggressive, confrontational, data-driven, dismissive of emotional reactions and even willing to question the motives of people who have them. He views "beauty" as a term that can be measured empirically.  He's standing up for what he sees as scientific integrity.   Walrond's video is positive, supportive and above all emotional.  To her, reducing "beauty" to scientific nomenclature is insulting. And she finds the idea of arguing this topic with a scientist to be "ridiculous."

There's nothing wrong with people who have different backgrounds having different takes on the same subject.  Clearly both viewpoints have some merit.  But for those of us who want science and scientists to have more influence and credibility with people in other communities, it shows we have more work to do.

Want to know what women want? Ask them.

On Monday I'll be back in Lexington KY at the Alltech Game Changers Symposium, giving a presentation on "What Women Want."   You may recall I did some "research" on this issue via Twitter and wound up getting a lot of feedback from some of the most influential women on the Internet.

More than one person has noted the irony of a man giving this presentation.  But in candor it's very easy to tell you what women want - in the words of a brilliant advertising exec, author, entrepreneur and mom - "women want to be understood."

But here's the hard part - all women are different. And despite what some people in marketing may say, I'm convinced the moment you try to label a woman you've lost her.  Sure, many women may share common interests, perspectives, ideas, and values.  But that doesn't mean you can treat them the same way.  

I'll be talking in greater detail about what this means for people in communications, but if you can't make it to Lexington I'd recommend you start actually paying attention to what women have to say.  The good news is a lot of them don't hide their thoughts.  Here's a partial list of the women whose blogs I try to read regularly.  I think if you look at the blogs in this list you'll realize very quickly that they're all quite different people with different situations.  No one message is likely to appeal to all of them, but they may all appreciate a sincere effort to understand each of them.

Liz Gumbinner, Mom 101
Kristen Chase, Motherhood Uncensored
Julie Marsh, JulieMarsh.net
Joanne Bamberger, PunditMom
Stefania Pomponi Butler, CityMama
Joanne Manaster, Joanne Loves Science
Catherine Connors, Her Bad Mother
Christina McMenemy, A Mommy Story
Kelly Wickham, Mocha Momma
Catherine Holecko, Mayberry Mom
Rachael Herrscher, Today's Mama
Heather Armstrong, Dooce
Susan Niebur, Toddler Planet
Tanis Miller, Attack of the Redneck Mommy
Veronica Arreola, Viva La Feminista
Sarah Braesch, Sarah and the Goon Squad
Jenny Lawson, The Bloggess
Mir Kamin, Woulda Coulda Shoulda
Christine Koh, Boston Mamas
Heather Barmore, No Pasa Nada
Thea Joselow, Nutgraf
Carin Bondar, CarinBondar.com
Carmen Staicer, Mom to the Screaming Masses
Heather Chapman, The Mother Tongue

speaking of #scimom...

The Wandering Scientist reads my "reflections" post and says I left out #scimom's who don't work in academia.  It's a valid point. And she's been paying attention to this a lot longer than I have - and not just because she's actually a #scimom.  Back in 2009 she put together perhaps the first #scimom list.

She says academic #scimoms can be more visible in the blogosphere and are more able to write about their work.   And she says being a mom prompts some to take you less seriously at work.   I think perspectives vary a bit on this (the CEO of the company where I work is a proud mom and grandmother), though I understand her point.

I'm curious to know what #scimoms think.  The impression I get is a lot of #scimoms write under a pseudonym whether they're academic or not.  Again just my impression but I get the feeling that anonymity has declined in the mom-o-sphere generally as it's grown more commercialized, but #scimom's still see a significant downside to sharing their names.

I know this topic has been the subject of much discussion at ScienceOnline and elsewhere.  I come from a different online community - public relations and issues management - where transparency is paramount and hiding your identity means hiding your true interests.  So it's hard for me to accept.  But that doesn't make this any less real.   Again, curious to know more about what others think.

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.)

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.

Neil deGrasse Tyson's mortal sin in online PR

Dr. Tyson (h/t: Wikipedia)

I recently listened to a Point of Inquiry Podcast - Chris Mooney interviewed Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Dr. Tyson is an astrophysicist, director of the Hayden Planetarium, host of the NOVA ScienceNOW tv show, and probably the best science communicator in the United States right now.

He's also an agnostic - not an atheist.  And while he says the public "God debate" is really not something he chooses to engage in much, he seems willing to disobey a rule so well-established in social media PR these days you might even call it one of PR's Ten Commandments - "thou shalt not edit thine own Wikipedia page."

About 36 minutes or so into the podcast, Dr. Tyson talks with Mooney about how he feels mislabeled as an atheist, and then makes an admission that makes an online PR flack like me raise an eyebrow:

It was funny – I don’t know who created my wiki page – but in there, a few years ago it said “Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist who is an astrophysicist” and I said “what… that’s not really..” so I said, so I put in there, “Neil deGrasse Tyson is agnostic” and then three days later or so it was back to “atheist.” So there’s an urge to claim me in that community. So then I had to – So I had to put it - word it in a way that would survive an edit so I said, “widely claimed by atheists, Tyson is actually an agnostic” so that managed to stick. I haven’t checked it lately but that’s how I left it off.

(Note: the edits to which Dr. Tyson refers don't appear on his Wikipedia page today.) Let me be clear about something:  I don't think what Dr. Tyson did is "wrong" - he took steps to correct the record as he sees it, and protect his own reputation. After all, this is essentially what I do for clients. When people write things about you, you have a right and an obligation to ask that those people get the "facts" right.   And in a forum as public and influential as Wikipedia, Dr. Tyson is quite right to be paying attention.

But let's be clear about something else - this sort of edit runs counter to Wikipedia's guidelines about conflict of interest and "neutral point of view"edits.  Dr. Tyson may view his action as simply correcting a minor point, but there is a clear public relations interest in a popular science communicator avoiding the unpopular, often misunderstood label of "atheist." It has been argued that Dr. Tyson's use of the word "agnostic" rather than "atheist" represents a distinction without a difference. And there's also a public relations interest in avoiding getting sucked into a debate over religious nomenclature.

Put it this way - If I, a public relations professional, were working for Dr. Tyson or the Hayden Planetarium or NOVA, and made exactly the same edits at exactly the same time, I'd be absolutely slaughtered for it. Companies and PR firms have been called out publicly for making far less substantive edits to their own or their client's Wikipedia pages.

The problem here isn't with anything Dr. Tyson did - the problem is with Wikipedia's guidelines.  Wikipedia's relatively inflexible guidelines have created a situation where "neutral" third parties can purposely or inadvertently post inaccurate or misleading information about a person or company - and that person or company is essentially "forbidden" (or at the least strongly discouraged) from responding quickly on the same forum. No, Wikipedia should not be a place for people to post their CV's or companies to plant marketing materials and press releases. However, just as Dr. Tyson has a right to weigh in on what's being said about him without fear of being labeled as a whitewasher, companies and PR flacks have a right to do so as well.

I do think we should disclose when we're making edits or additions.  Frankly, I have no problem with some special kind of citation that an edit to a page was made by the subject of that page or one of its agents. We should be using legitimate sources and follow the same rules as everyone else on this platform.

Wikipedia's popularity (and search engine optimization) has unquestionably positioned it as an unbiased and authoritative resource.  It's increasingly cited in other publications.  But even the "outs" you can find in Wikipedia's guidelines - things like "if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then break the rule" or "use common sense" - haven't made it acceptable for the subjects of pages to correct the record.  We're left with contacting the Wikipedians and hoping that they'll get back to us before they deal with any of the 738 gazillion other pages on the site, and even then there's no guarantee that the matter will be dealt with appropriately.

This is crap.  And it should change.

The Science-to-English Dictionary Doesn't Include the Words "Fuck Off"

Some interesting discussions in the field of science communications in the past few weeks.  First, Chris Mooney interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson and writes about it at the Intersection.  He also included this somewhat noteworthy exchange between Tyson and Richard Dawkins:



While quite funny (and a bit salty at the end there), it illustrates a growing tension among scientists - whether they should take the time and effort to persuade those less science literate than themselves, or whether they should essentially "speak truth to power" in debates where sides are growingly intractable - climate change, evolution, vaccines, and so on.

I realize it doesn't have to be an either-or thing, and there may be a time and place for each approach, but in general I count myself squarely in Tyson's camp on this.  On the very important debates where the goal is to encourage or change behavior, I've never found the words "fuck off" to be especially effective.  There really is a better way.

To me the answer lies in creating a groundswell of support on the pro-science side of these arguments, and that means establishing a large, deep reservoir of goodwill between scientists and the general public. Doing so aligns the incentives of policymakers (who respond to the public) and scientists more directly.

That's why I was so impressed with Maggie Koerth-Baker's presentation at the SAGE Weston Lecture Series at University of Wisconsin-Madison.   Koerth-Baker is the science editor at Boing Boing, and I thought her advice to scientists about being more persuasive with the general public was outstanding:

I think the best recommendation that I have is to go to presentations and go to public lectures on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. Step outside your expertise and start thinking like somebody who doesn’t know about this. And when you do you are going to find questions that you’re not asking about your own work. And you are going to find sources of skepticism that you aren’t applying to your own work. And you can kind of turn around and start doing that. One of the things I think you are going to run into if you do this is the issue of how long it takes for basic science to find its way to the commercial sector. This is really, really, really poorly understood. And neither journalists nor scientists do a very good job of giving the public what it needs to understand.

Of course, understanding others by listening to what they have to say is only part of the task.  When you're speaking, Koerth-Baker says you have to do so on the most basic of terms:

Sacrificing storytelling and understandability for extreme accuracy is often just as bad as sacrificing accuracy for the sake of storytelling. To start off with that what I mean is dumbing down is OK. I hear lots and lots of people, even journalists, making fun of USA Today because it is written at a 6th-grade reading level. It should be. We should write more at a 6th-grade reading level. If you are not writing about your science at a 6th-grade reading level you are probably doing something wrong. And not enough people are understanding what you’re talking about.

And finally, her advice to science communicators sounds quite a bit like PR or marketing counsel to me:

Basically everything that I have told you here boils down to two basic lessons. First: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. And Second: KNOW YOUR MESSAGE. And finally, be able to match the correct audience and the correct message so that people really understand what you’re saying.

It goes back to what I was saying about climate change and strategic communications a while back.  Scientists really have a choice: lift people up or put people down. One approach will bring people closer to your understanding of the nature of the world around us, while the other will push people away.    With the issues we face, the stakes are far too high to settle for the smug satisfaction of knowing you're right.