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:

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

Outsourcing Disrespect

Every now and then I get an email from a pal in the mom-o-sphere that makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.  Today was one such occasion.

A friend passed along a solicitation from a new-sounding company called Tomoson (not interested in linking) asking her to sign up at their website so she could receive free stuff to review on her blog.  To get the free swag -things like wigs, keychains and novelty sauce - she apparently would have to embed some html code in her blog so the company could monitor posts and let the client who makes the tchotchkes high-quality merchandise know what an awesome job they're doing, getting bloggers to write about them essentially for free.

I checked out their website and they had a section for "promoters" with a video that claimed they had "thousands of bloggers" (yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that) ready to opine on the awesomeness of keychains, and that these blog posts would create some kind of SEO juggernaut that would launch your hotsauce or branded nail file or whatever to the upper echelons of the google machine.    They've just created this automated system designed to capitalize on the credibility of human interaction that is peer review - and they've "streamlined" it by taking all the human interaction out of it.

I don't do a ton of consumer marketing, so I don't claim to be the nation's foremost expert, but I'll definitely put my professional reputation and my relationships in the mom-o-sphere against this company any day. (I noticed that the business owners don't put their names on the site.)   And I'm going to be straight - not only do I think this approach runs counter to everything I believe in professionally, I think doing what this company proposes actually does much more harm than good for clients.  I think the brands that use a service like this are being dismissive and disrespectful to bloggers, and will be getting absolutely useless metrics.

Here's the message a company is sending to bloggers by using this service.  Not only are they declining to engage directly with bloggers on a substantive level, not only are they fishing for free advertising, not only are they pawning off cheap crap, not only are they requiring people to “apply” for this cheap crap – they can’t even be bothered to do it themselves and instead outsource it on the cheap.

And before anyone says "well of course he's trashing them, he's a competitor" - not so.  In my business I sometimes hire a subcontractor to help with outreach.  But if I'm reaching out to moms, I tend to hire a mom.  If I'm reaching out to medical professionals, I hire a medical professional.  I work with people who have credibility in their own communities and I build non-transactional relationships.  This automated system is transactional by definition.  It's not even a full step removed from buying followers on Twitter.

And as I said, I don't do a lot of consumer marketing anyway.  I don't foresee developing a strategic communications campaign that asks bloggers to review the comfort of clear bra straps.

It's Official: Nomenclature Is a Weapon of Mass Destruction

this is what happens when oxygen levels drop in the ocean

It's a common practice in politics and PR. The easiest way to avoid responsibility for something is to just call it something else. Put it in another category and wait for people to focus on the next outrage.  It usually works.   The most salient example in recent memory is the depraved attempt to define waterboarding as something other than torture. Sure, the media covered the issue well for a while, but it's not as if anyone has ever truly been held accountable for torturing people. The experts on the topic never had a chance against a PR strategy run by political consultants.  That's because "experts" - scientists, academics, intellectuals - really have no serious influence in policy when it matters most.  (Seriously, they don't.  I'll debate anyone, anytime on this.)

Now nomenclature has suddenly (and perhaps officially)  made millions upon millions of gallons of oil miraculously disappear from the Gulf of Mexico.  A report earlier this month from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports:

The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed  much of which is in the process of being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.

Which in government-PR speak means "we won't be spending a ton more time or money dealing with this because the way we've defined it, we're almost done fixing it. So chill out.  We got this."

Enter the scientific community, led by some really outstanding researchers from The University of Georgia. (Goooooooo DAWGS.)  They took a look at what the government said and then looked at what's actually going on and had this to say:

“One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,” said Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant and professor of marine sciences in the University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade. We are still far from a complete understanding of what its impacts are....

The group analyzed data from the Aug. 2 National Incident Command Report, which calculated an “oil budget” that was widely interpreted to suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the spill remained.

Hopkinson notes that the reports arrive at different conclusions largely because the Sea Grant and UGA scientists estimate that the vast majority of the oil classified as dispersed, dissolved or residual is still present, whereas the NIC report has been interpreted to suggest that only the “residual” form of oil is still present. 

This is science-speak for "Yeah, ummm... dudes?  Not so much.  'Dispersed' doesn't mean 'gone.'"  There is no doubt that the ecological impacts of this spill will be devastating for years to come. And NOAA is spinning it.  The media, to their credit, took the UGA folks seriously.

comes with a side of defibrillator

Here's how I might try to explain it.  First, grab a Double Coronary Burger, which can be found at the Vortex Bar & Grill in Atlanta - probably less than 2 hours from UGA.  (I learned about it at the website This Is Why You're Fat.)  The Double Coronary features a burger topped with five slices of bacon, four slices of cheese, two fried eggs, mayo, lettuce, tomato, and onion between two grilled cheese sandwiches.

Now, cut it in half.  Cut the halves in half, and eat one of the quarters.  Try not to die. Take another quarter and put it on another plate.


Take the remaining two quarters and cut them in half.  Then cut all those pieces in half.  Then repeat this until you basically have a bunch of little pieces of heart attack smeared all over a plate.  Then spray that smushed up death plate with some liquid borax or something like that.

Then take both plates, head over to the local supermarket, and dump the plates into the lobster tank and see what happens.  (Be prepared to pay for all the lobster. And maybe the tank.)


I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure our government would be pleased if you thought the borax-infused death smear in front of you doesn't really exist any more because it's in a bunch of little pieces.  You really only need to worry about that quarter on the other plate, and that's going away naturally or something.  

And when the borax-infused death smear makes its way up the food chain?  You can be damn sure the company that gets sued for selling food that got someone sick will say the government told everyone it was ok, so they shouldn't be held responsible.

So what do you do about it?

My previous post elicited a rather thoughtful response from Wandering Willa:

Given your PR background is it possible that your natural inclination and goals are not necessarily the same as the bloggers in question. If these were your clients, how would you explain what you perceive their goals are and should be? How would you take their concerns for the integrity of their connections in designing a strategy to represent them? Do you offer a valuable service to them considering you expect them to approach someone who can't even do her job? What is accomplished by doing so?

 Why Willa, I'm so glad you asked. 

Of course it's quite likely that my natural inclination and goals are not necessarily the same as members of the science blogging community.  But since my job is part of the discussion now, I should stress my comments on the issue are not related to any client.  I have no material relationships to disclose in any of this nonsense, and I'm not using this as some sort of business development opportunity - though I do think there is professional value in being "the PR guy that science bloggers read."  Science writing has been an interest of mine from some time - you can see the communities I read on my communities and links page. (since the SB exodus I have to update some links, I know.)

Given the current environment I'm a bit hesitant to make generalizations about science bloggers. (Though I admit I've done so before, but hopefully not in a mean way.) I don't think the science blogging community has "goals" in the sense that a company has a PR goal.   The consensus I see among many scientists and science writers is the desire to "win" in policy debates and culture wars on some very basic issues where the science is not in serious doubt, and more generally, to have more respect both individually and as a group. 

The challenge with asserting a community-wide goal is two-fold - first you have to define the community and second you must have a way to measure it.  (I'll let members of this community define it, it's not my place to do so.)  It's easy to say you want to increase public sentiment toward scientists and science bloggers.  The ways you'd measure that may sound surprisingly scientific coming from a PR flack like me - establish a baseline, develop an intervention, and then re-test.  In my line of work you can conduct opinion polls that measure favorable vs. unfavorable attitudes toward certain people or groups.   But any big PR firm in the world can get the percentage of people who agree with the sentence "scientists are nice" to bump up a few points after an ad campaign or something.   Typically the only thing that accomplishes is give some folks at an ad agency a few bucks.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) 

To me the goal should be two-fold - increase the ability of scientists (and science writers) to be influential in a variety of public forums and civic structures, and forge enough meaningful relationships between the community and other elite civic leaders to have a substantive impact on policy in real time.  These goals take quite a long time to accomplish.  I'm putting together some ideas and will have more on that soon.

As for "integrity of connections," it's obviously quite important. One must have standing within one's own community if one claims to speak for it.  I think scientists know this better than most.  But I also think most science bloggers will say there's still a role for industry and commerce here.  Transparency has always been non-negotiable, especially in this community - I'm reasonably certain as long as all relevant material relationships are disclosed this sort of thing is handled rather well among scientists.

Do I offer a valuable service?  All I can say is the "advice" I dole out on this blog is free and you get every penny's worth.  But I am personally committed to the community and want to see it thrive. I also see professional advantage in forging strong relationships in this community.  It's called "social networking." It works.

But as for Ms. Heffernan "not doing her job," I'll simply say this isn't the first time someone who worked for a newspaper got something wrong or said something unfair.  I've seen far worse screw-ups from world-renowned journalists.  And what can be accomplished by converting her into an ally, or at least into someone who understands and respects the community? She works for the New York Times Magazine.  Yes, THAT New York Times.  With all those readers.  With all that influence.  Write her off and call her stupid, and she has an excuse to do it again.

Put together a day for her.  Introduce her to some folks.  Have a drink or two.  Let her discover what she has in common with the people she's covering.    Now do that for a dozen big-league journalists.  Then a couple of mayors. Maybe a member of Congress.  A whole truckload of PTA members.  some local businesses. 

Next thing you know you have a good reputation and good things start happening.

Science Needs a Strategy

I'm back.  I'll have something to say about "Pepsi-gate" but I'm trying to get some insights from others closer to the situation first.  Before I disappeared from the blog I mentioned an interest in examining Chris Mooney's assertion that scientists need to be better listeners when it comes to (for lack of a better term) public relations. For a while now I've pushed something somewhat related:

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. 

When Mooney talks about "listening" I think he means understanding where certain critics are coming from and understanding more about what makes the more neutral (and potentially persuadable) public tick.  I think we all see a certain amount of value in that. But I also think Mooney would agree that "listening" is only the beginning.

If I understand what Mooney's critics are saying, he's been blasted for being either too simplistic, or too brief, or that he doesn't put enough of the burden on non-scientists, or that his ideas won't be a complete solution, or that engaging critics is like talking to the wall, or that scientists really shouldn't wade into some areas of discussion because it compromises their important role or their integrity or something.  

But then I cringe when I read headlines like "Scientists expected Obama administration to be friendlier."  (Really?  Why? Because he said he would be?  As Speaker Pelosi once said, "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.") Or when I read the Attorney General of Virginia wants to investigate scientists who did nothing more than write uncouth emails about climate change critics - even after the scientists have been cleared of any wrongdoing. (No word on whether the AG plans to investigate the theft and leaking of said emails.)  Or when the scientific community is flatly ignored by our own government and an oil company whose CEO insisted the greatest ecological disaster of our time would be "very, very modest."

Here's the sad, simple truth: Scientists are marginalized in politics and the media because there's no downside to marginalizing them.  The community is loosely organized at best from a political / PR standpoint - despite the multitudes of organizations within the community.  There is no groundswell of support, no army of activists ready to go at a moment's notice. Worse still, there's no real agreement among scientists how to address this - or even if they should.

When it appeared the White House was going to drop immigration reform as a priority, Latino groups organized and made some noise.  Now reform is back on the table.  When it appeared the President's promise to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a military policy would be cast aside, the GLBT community organized and made some noise.  Now DADT repeal is back on the table. 

It's not like these communities are monolithic.  But there are some issues where they all get together and fight.  Where they let a group within the community identify an audience, set a goal, develop a strategy, and work relentlessly to implement it.   People either support that effort or they get out of the way.

Critics of science (you know, like some national groups with the word "family" in their name) consistently kick scientists' asses in PR and politics not because they're made of money but because they have a plan and they stick to it.  They learn as much as they can about the pool of persuadable people and the pressure points of people in power.  They test messages relentlessly with focus groups and polling.  They identify speakers and develop talking points and pitch stories to reporters.  They recruit allies.  They don't expect to "win" in a day, or a week, or a month - but they have specific benchmarks and timelines.  They have specific actions they ask people to take at specific times - typically in advance of milestones in a court case or a political campaign or the legislative calendar. They build databases of supporters and they stay in contact with them.  They constantly work to build relationships beyond their own, cloistered community - so when the time comes to build a coalition of support around an issue they're not introducing themselves by asking for something.

Bottom line: there's nothing even close to this from scientists or their "allies."  Nothing.  Instead there's mockery or infighting or indifference.

The mockery bugs me a lot. You're not shaming an adversary, you're getting their blood up and getting them to work harder. For example, I've heard educated people refer to National Rifle Association members as "ignorant hillbilly gun-nuts with no teeth."   But ask a politician where he or she stands on banning gun sales to PEOPLE ON THE TERRORISM WATCH LIST.  Nine out of ten of them will be looking over their shoulders, asking those ignorant hillbillies what they should think before they tell the guy who writes love letters to al Qaeda not to buy that AK-47.

The infighting bugs me even more. Chris Mooney had a thought.  Some people agreed with it, some people didn't.  That's fine.  But if Mooney and his pals launch a campaign to implement his ideas - ideas that they think would help all scientists - I'm fairly convinced there would be other scientists peppering insults from the sidelines, undermining the credibility of the campaign because of differences over minor tactical details or personality conflicts or whatever.  There would be people jumping in, saying "Chris doesn't speak for me," but not having a lot to say beyond that.  Let's face it - there are a lot of big egos in the scientific community.  But not even Darwin was correct 100% of the time.  It doesn't mean he wasn't brilliant.

The indifference bugs me the most.  I may be a civics nerd, but I think everyone has an obligation to participate in the political or civic process in some way.  With education comes a responsibility to the greater good.  If our political leaders are basing their decisions on folklore instead of science, then scientists must step up, organize, and make real noise. It can't be "that's a climatology issue, I'm a chemist."   It can't be "they just won't listen."  It can't be "I don't understand this process and don't have the time to learn it." 

Right now the politicians are blowing scientists off because they can.  Frankly, that's not even close to the worst.   Pretty soon they'll be looking for pots of money to cut the deficit or pay for something else. Guess where they'll find the cash?  Then the textbook re-write parties will migrate to Northern states.

This tide can be turned, but it won't if the community doesn't step up, organize, plan, and make some noise.

I've been busy, OK?

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...

Science PR... Missing the Point

A year or so ago I read a book called Unscientific America by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum.   It was a fairly straightforward call-to-action for the community of scientists and science advocates.  It suggested the burden fell mainly on that community to develop better ways to communicate the importance and relevance of science to people outside that community.  It offered some general suggestions on doing so, such as being less antagonistic toward people of faith and finding more and better ways to blend science and pop culture.   I don't necessarily agree 100 percent with everything in the book, but it got more much more negative criticism than I thought it would.

Chris Mooney has been fairly engaged when it comes to responding to his critics, most recently the editor of a conservative publication called the New Atlantis. To me a lot of the criticism/discussion has been about issues only tangential to the most important point.   Sometimes the criticism focuses on politics - Mooney clearly doesn't shy away from partisan politics.  (BTW, I don't use the word "partisan" as a pejorative.) Sometimes it's a discussion about what's ok to say to religious people.  I recall some of the criticism even had to do with the choices the authors made to serve as examples for the book, such as the debate over the "status" of Pluto.

I boil it down like this.  There's general consensus in the science / science advocacy community that science and scientists are undervalued. There are differences of opinion on who's responsible for fixing that.  But for those who truly believe it's the responsibility of scientists and science advocates to fix it, I think there's still a huge disconnect.

I'm very hesitant to paraphrase or summarize Mooney & Kirshenbaum, because I think most of the criticism of the book really misstates what they intended to convey.  I think they want scientists to become better communicators and better writers for a lay audience.  It seems to me they want to "re-brand" science topics, making them cool or popular.  And then I see criticism from New Atlantis for using PR-like language to describe what they'd do.

Well, I'm in PR.  I've been in PR and politics (which is basically PR on steroids) for almost 20 years now.  Here's what I tell my clients - and it hasn't changed over time.  It's not terribly complicated. 

1. NEVER LIE.
2. Learn everything you possibly can about the people you want to influence.
3. Have a plan for reaching people, and have a plan for when that plan doesn't work.
4. Don't wait for people to come to you; find them.  Knock on doors.
5. Don't expect people to suddenly think your information is important. You have to make it relevant to them.
6. Don't expect people to use your communication tools. If people prefer telephones, don't expect them to respond to your email. 
7. Get used to hearing "no" a lot.  Be patient.
8. If you're not enjoying it, you're not doing it right.

I have other lists of pithy feel-good PR advice, which I'll share in later posts.

This community of scientists and their advocates are getting a lot of it right, but they're missing one really important thing.  It's what Bora is calling "push versus pull."  Chris and Sheril are finding really good people who are making themselves available to help.  They don't seem to be finding a lot of people who are willing to knock on doors.  Nobody seems to be thinking about finding the best doors to knock.

Knocking on doors is not easy; it's not convenient.  It's outside the comfort zone of most people.  But it's what must be done to change attitudes here.

Buying Google Ads Is Not a Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science, Politics, PR and Social Media

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.

Making Science Relevant

A couple of months ago I wrote a blog post called Science Has a Serious PR Problem and it got some notice on twitter, mainly thanks to Bora Zivkovic.  I'm very grateful for the feedback I got from science bloggers about it.   While it will no doubt take some time, I'm committed to doing something about it.  In the blog post I tried to convey two major points. First, the nature of the problem:

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.

 Second, the beginnings of a solution:

I've heard people say "we need to make science cool" - a lot of that talk was at ScienceOnline 2010 - and that would be nice, but I don't think that's really the answer. "Science" isn't really going to beat out American Idol or the NFL or whatever.

Cool is important, but I think we need to make science relevant. There's a difference.

Since then I've been having some conversations with some science bloggers, some mom bloggers, some people who fit squarely in both camps, and some people who fit in neither camp on a project we could do to help address this.  (More on that later.) But earlier this week I saw an example of what "making science relevant" looks like:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 Yes, that's Rachel Maddow talking with an actual scientist - Dr. Edward Overton at LSU's School of the Coast and Environment - about the goop that's floating around in the Gulf of Mexico right now, what can be done about it, and why that's important.

Without a doubt, Dr. Overton did a tremendous job.   First, he knew his audience and avoided technical jargon, opting for terms like "the consistency of roof tar" and "chocolate mousse."  Second, he did a great job keeping his language moderate and his tone calm when prompted to expound on doomsday scenarios. This is critical. Media types are trained to focus on the controversy and the crisis - "if it bleeds, it leads" is a common mantra in the journalism industry, and cable news takes it to the next level - but Overton stuck to his guns, explaining what was cataclysmic versus what was simply bad and reminding us all to think about both the "possible and the probable."

Most importantly, by doing a good job in the interview he put the role of science in its proper context for an important current event.  You just can't overstate this.  Maddow and Overton flipped the current thinking of science in the media on its head.  Instead of trying to shoehorn a "science story" into the current news stream without context, they took a relevant, salient issue and explained the role scientists play in addressing it.

Think about how it works right now.  On television, sometime after the story about what the President said today and what the stock market did, but before the story about a panda coming to the zoo, you'll sometimes see a story that starts with "A new study was released today by a medical journal that says coleslaw causes cancer in ferrets" or something.  So on top of all the other things you're thinking about you have to remind yourself to not eat coleslaw, you know, because of the ferrets.  (The next day science bloggers will say the  article wasn't the definitive word on the slaw-ferret cancer connection, the methodology was flawed, correlation doesn't mean causation, and the media got it all wrong, and so on.) 

In newspapers, or at least in big newspapers, there's a science-technology section that comes out once a week - all neatly packaged and self-contained, chock full of cool stories about a solar eclipse in Bhutan or the DNA of fruit bats or maybe the dinosaur bone exhibit.

But it's all segregated from the rest of the news, even when there's arguably a strong role for science to play in a major story.  Think fast - what's the first thing you remember in the news reporting about the volcano erupting in Iceland?  Admit it - you remember all the flights in Europe being canceled.  BREAKING NEWS:  ABC News reports Whitney Houston has to take a boat.   Seriously.

I'm not suggesting we should stop publishing science sections in newspapers or talking about new health studies on TV - while the reporting is occasionally flawed, you can still find boatloads of great stories that educate, entertain, provoke, and even inspire you.   I'm suggesting science isn't an "angle" to be exploited in a story.  It's a big part of every day life.  Scientists and those who want science to be a more meaningful part of large discussions have to make the case for relevance and enter those discussions in a non-intimidating way.

The first step in this, I think, falls on scientists and science communicators.  The good news is they have to do something I know they already do well - listen and pay attention, and search for common ground with others.

More soon.

My Mom Is NOT a Porn Addict

Facebook's QA Team

I generally don't write about family stuff here but this time I got permission.

My mom joined Facebook yesterday - at least she tried to.  Folks have been telling her she should join because she has a local business, and she likes seeing the pictures that other family members post there.  So she went through the steps, and started building a profile - name, hometown, interests.  She uploaded a handful of pictures she took, all rated G. (Not even one breastfeeding pic.  We all know they're sensitive about that.) She followed the automated steps and sent out a couple of friend requests.

Then she got that all-too-familiar email:

Your account was disabled because it was in violation of Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Nudity, sexually explicit, and other graphic content is not permitted on Facebook, nor is any content that contains self harm, depicts violence, or attacks an individual or group. In addition, harassing others through unsolicited friend requests or messages is prohibited.

Unfortunately, we won’t be able to reactivate your account or respond to your email directly. This decision is final and cannot be appealed.  You can visit the Warnings section of the Help Center for more information: 

http://www.facebook.com/help/?page=421

That was it.  Account terminated, no appeal.  Ciao, bella.  Not sure whether Facebook will claim ownership of the half-dozen pictures or demographic information she entered.

It's obvious Facebook made a fairly innocent mistake here.   But this is just the latest indication that Facebook has reached "too big to fail" status and quality control has slipped.  They just don't have the resources to properly evaluate and review disputes because they're much too busy converting your personal information into marketing profiles for companies. 

It's not a new concern.  Let me put it this way - when the Attorney General of New York calls and says you better do something about sexual predators on your network, you don't ignore him to the point where he has to issue a subpoena.   I'm sure those couple dozen messages just "fell through the cracks."

It's also clear that they're leveraging this new status to make it more complicated for people to protect their information.  They've taken "opt-out" to the next level - so far that members of Congress are again planning to regulate them more strictly.

But here is Facebook's conundrum: it requires significant resources to do real quality control and pay real attention to settling disputes when your network is 8.2 gazillion people.  What little resources the company actually has are mainly dedicated to serving advertisers.  If they move to an opt-in system, they know they will lose all sorts of information and value for advertisers and won't make as much money.  If they do real quality control and have human analysis for everyday disputes, they'll spend a lot more money.  "Less money in, more money out" isn't the best business model.  And asking subscribers to pay to make up some of the difference?  Ask the folks at Ning how that's going.

UPDATE: got this from a pal who works at NIH...

@dwescott1 for some reason your blog is being blocked by NIH's firewall.less than a minute ago via TweetDeckJonathan Gitlin
drjonboyg

Geez, you use the word "porn" in a blog post title ONE TIME...

UPDATE 2:  turns out NIH was blocking all blogspot URL's for some reason.  Susan was right.  Apparently I'm not that much of a rebel...

ummmm.... guys don't use those.

OK, so a pal of mine who contributes to a clean-tech blog got a pitch email. He's a guy. He forwarded it to me. He said it would be OK for me to republish. I'll leave out names to be kind. But here it is.

As you and your [clean-tech blog name] readers know, Earth Day is right around the corner and people will most likely be focused on typical issues such as plastic water bottle usage, energy consumption, and recycling habits. What many people don’t consider when 'going green' is their usage of deodorants and douching systems.

Of the 300 million people in the United States, more than 90 percent use deodorant on a regular basis. In 2006, Americans spent more than 2.3 billion dollars on deodorant and antiperspirant.

An interesting Earth Day topic to feature might be that a product your readers use daily unnecessarily contributes to the growth of our landfills. An alternative to offer your readers is [product name].

[Product name] is a stainless steel bar used in the shower that successfully eliminates body odor. Stainless steel paired with tap water is a secret that chefs have been using for many years to rid their hands of food odor such as fish, garlic, and onion. This product is reusable and never needs to be replaced, which reduces the amount of waste people send to landfills.

Approximately 37 percent of women douche on a regular basis, and over the counter (OTC) douching products are not reusable. If this many women are douching on a regular basis then our landfills are being filled with these products.

A way for females to feel clean and to be more eco-friendly is to use a product called [product name], a feminine cleansing system that can be used over and over again. [Product name] is safer than other OTC feminine cleansing systems because it uses no chemicals, which is also better for the environment.

Do you need a product sample to review for your story? If needed, I can provide you with samples and images.

Let me know if you need an interview with the spokesperson and I can get you in touch with [spokesperson name].

Talk to you soon,

[junior PR person name]

I could pontificate on the myriad levels of wrong this email displays for hours but instead I'll just say one thing.

Seriously, MAKE IT STOP.

"Bloggers vs. Journalists," a.k.a. The Great Distraction

A colleague of mine forwarded an interesting piece from Tech Crunch with the headline "Study: 52 Percent Of Bloggers Consider Themselves Journalists." The study (link to the social media release) is a survey of "1,568 traditional and non-traditional media and, for the first time, 1,670 PR practitioners." The survey was sponsored by PR Newswire.

Set aside the fact that if companies and PR folks REALLY thought bloggers were journalists, they'd never send emails like this.

I think the survey is helpful, though I'm curious to see the actual questions asked, full results etc. For example, I'd like to know if any of the bloggers they surveyed were already full-time professional journalists who have started blogs. I'm not saying you should exclude journalists-who-blog, but I'd like to know if the survey sample was randomized.

I raise it because the online communities where I do the most work have very different stories. The editorial team at Global Voices Online? Sure, they're journalists. However, among online moms, I'd be shocked if more than 10 percent of them consider themselves journalists. Science bloggers generally self-identify as scientists. I think the green bloggers with whom I work generally consider themselves "journalists" of one stripe or another, though they don't seem to discuss the tools of the trade much - there isn't much talk about "on the record" versus "off the record" versus "on background," or about respecting embargoes, etc. There's also not much of an attempt to hide personal opinions or bias. As for political bloggers, some may say they are journalists but many professional journalists clearly disagree.

But here's the point: the "bloggers versus journalists" debate is nothing more than a distraction. It's a time-sucking discussion about nomenclature. It's the bizarre need to make sure round pegs fit in round holes and square pegs in square holes and make all the colors match.

More importantly, among PR professionals, I really think it's about laziness. PR pros are used to working with journalists, and want desperately to make this relatively new phenomenon of personal online publishing fit their pre-existing methods and rules. While it's appropriate and valuable to learn as much as we can about the media, We can't let this lull us into thinking that it's the bloggers who need to adapt to our methods and not vice versa.

The Scariest iPhone App EVAH

I mentioned the Good Guide iPhone app in a podcast with Maria Surma Manka a while back. It's a database of consumer products and corresponding ratings based on health and nutrition value, impact on the environment, and commitment to social causes or priorities. Until recently, the shortcoming of the app was its usability - you had to work your way through categories and brands etc to find the product you wanted, and if you're at the market it becomes a time suck.

Now they've added a barcode scanning feature so you don't have to work your way through their lists to get the info you want right away. Nice time saver. So I tried it out on a box of cereal.

And I learned immediately that the company that made the cereal has "violated the Clean Water Act."

And then I realized it's just a matter of time before I'm going to learn if a company discriminates against gay people, or is a union buster, or has a CEO that denies climate change, or has a political action committee that gives only to Republicans, or has a slew of OSHA violations, or doesn't pay any taxes, or has another product that's being recalled - ALL AT THE POINT OF SALE.

This means that a company will have nothing more than the time it takes to reach for the next product on the shelf to present its side of the story and restore its reputation. And if it hasn't built up its relationship with a customer ahead of time, and inoculated its reputation against this kind of "breaking" information, it's about to go the way of the dodo.

Bridging Brands and Bloggers

Susan Getgood asked me to participate in a webinar next month called "Bridging Brands & Bloggers." I've sung Susan's praises here before but I think she's really outdone herself this time.

The Council of PR Firms is sponsoring the webinar and Susan is representing Blog With Integrity. (I'm a member of BWI's Advisory Board.) The webinar will look at best practices in social media outreach and also examine the impact that new FTC rules have had on the industry. CPRF is really leading the way here, and I'm very pleased they've tapped Susan to lead the development of this.

What really excites me about the webinar, however, is the panel of bloggers she's lined up:

Beth Blecherman is the force behind Tech Mamas;
Michelle Madhok leads SHEfinds; and
Tim Hurst, my editor at Earth & Industry and at Ecopolitology.

It's very rare that someone brings bloggers together from three huge sectors - tech, retail, and environment - on a single panel to talk about PR, but she pulled it off. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to participate, and I hope you'll join us...

Science Has a Serious PR Problem

Here's the truth: evolution happens, vaccines save lives and don't cause autism, and climate change is real.

Meanwhile, as Julie Marsh points out, the state of Texas continues to push for alternatives to evolution in its science curriculum in schools. Even after the Lancet retracted its infamous paper suggesting a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism, The Huffington Post published a piece by David Kirby insisting the retraction "changes nothing." (and guess what? this post is the first thing you see when you google "Lancet retraction.") And sadly, the South Dakota House of Representatives just passed a resolution - well, let Kate Sheppard explain:

The resolution, approved by a vote of 36-30, states that public schools should be required to teach students that "global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact" and that a variety of "climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics" could be changing the weather. Yes, that’s astrological, as in horoscopes. And as Brad Plumer points out, thermology involves the science of infrared body imaging. Not quite clear what role that might play in global warming.

In Utah, one state legislator called climate change "in fact a conspiracy to limit population not only in this country but across the globe," and prompted the state Assembly to pass a resolution urging the federal government to stop its "carbon dioxide reduction programs."

Now the New York Times reports that opponents of science are trying to link some of these issues together - leveraging misinformation about climate change to promote misinformation about evolution. It cites a bill filed in Kentucky that tries to question the science on both.

From a politics and communications perspective, science is getting its butt kicked right now on the state level. And while the stimulus package Congress passed a year ago gave science funding a boost, overall sound science isn't doing all that much better on the federal level.

This is a serious problem for everyone in many ways. Right now I'm focusing on my line of work. When science is attacked, people don't know who to believe on issues of fact - and they can't make informed decisions. If you're a business with science-based product, you're vulnerable to any kind of fear-based campaign with halfway-decent, focus-grouped messaging. You know, like "there's antifreeze in vaccines." (there isn't.) Further, if a business tries to stand up for science, it's attacked as mercilessly profit-driven. Who's right is irrelevant.

So where is the campaign to fight back?

The truth is there isn't one. What we have is a handful of decent books like Unscientific America and Denialism, a lot of really smart science and medical bloggers, and Bill Nye. There is a grassroots group (more accurately, a group of groups) called Citizens for Science that tries to take on the issues facing science education - but you may notice that they list no chapters in the states mentioned above - Utah, South Dakota, and Kentucky.

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.

Even Bill Nye, who really tries to talk with non-scientists, likes to talk about meeting Stephen Hawking. He's really preaching to the converted.

The blogosphere represents an outstanding opportunity for scientists to share ideas with the rest of us. And there are hundreds of really smart scientists writing very impressive blogs - most of which use words I've never seen. But on issues like climate change or evolution or when science is criticized generally, Not many science bloggers I've seen like to talk with the "persuadables." They prefer to eviscerate their critics, and insult those who might follow those critics. On science blogs, scientists are sharing their points of view with their colleagues, and they're adding some powerful snark for good measure. It may be good science, but it's not good PR. And what's happening in the blogosphere is happening elsewhere as well.

I've heard people say "we need to make science cool" - a lot of that talk was at ScienceOnline 2010 - and that would be nice, but I don't think that's really the answer. "Science" isn't really going to beat out American Idol or the NFL or whatever.

Cool is important, but I think we need to make science relevant. There's a difference. For example, I think every scientist should listen to Robert Krulwich's 2008 Commencement Address to graduates of Cal Tech:

When a cousin, or an uncle, or a buddy comes up and asks you, "so what are you working on?" even if it's hard to explain, even if you know they don't really want to hear it - not really - I urge you to give it a try. Because talking about science, telling stories to regular folks is not a trivial thing. Scientists need to tell stories to non-scientists because science stories - and you know this - have to compete with other stories about how the universe works and how the universe came to be. And some of those other stories - Bible stories, movie stories, myths - can be very beautiful and very compelling. But to protect science, and scientists - this is not a gentle competition - you've got to get in there and tell yours, your version of how things are and why things came to be.

Yes, we should celebrate science and scientists in our pop culture. But it's not enough. Science has to be accessible and relevant. Those who do it must be able to talk about it - not "media trained" but able to explain, in simple terms, what it is, why it's important to them, and why could be important to everyone else.

Further, people have to be able to participate in it, at least in some way. Darlene Cavalier and Michael Gold are developing this wonderfully important and engaging website called Science for Citizens that gives regular folks an opportunity to participate in real science projects run by real scientists. Of course, I learned about this by watching Darlene present it to a room full of scientists. And I saw some of those scientists mumbling things like "that's not really science."

What Darlene and Michael are doing is profoundly important, and it deserves enormous support. Not everyone is going to be a PhD but everyone should have the opportunity to participate in the scientific process, and feel the rush of discovery and awakening that comes with learning and experiencing new things.

As more people have that understanding and perspective, I think we'll see much more support of science generally and far fewer attempts by state legislators to obfuscate or reject what we know is true.

So gear up, science bloggers... I'll be sharing more thoughts soon...

Social Media in 2010: Nothing Important Will Change

So all the shiny social media gurus are out there inventing new terminology to restate the obvious for their "2010 predictions" posts.

But here's the truth: nothing of any consequence will fundamentally reshape the best practices of social media in 2010. NOTHING. Here's why.

Relationships will still be the single most important thing for social media. Opinion leaders in online communities will still be the ones driving most of the discussions. Content will still be king.

"Authenticity" and "transparency" will still be buzzwords, and some people will still try to come up with ways to get around both. A lot of PR flacks will still treat blogs like they're just online newspapers and send bloggers generic press releases.

Democrats will continue to use the Internet as an ATM, Republicans will continue to use the Internet as a way to write about what they heard on talk radio.

There will be a lot of useless blather about social media tools. Someone will come up with a new shiny toy and a select group of people will need to have it right away. Then in three months the price will drop. We'll see another iPhone-killer, Google-killer, Facebook-killer, and Twitter-killer. None of them will kill anything. This is the year that blogs will be dead. Again.

Someone will get burned for publishing something inappropriate on a social network.

Someone nobody knows today will do something creative and it will become very popular on the Internet for a short amount of time, and companies across the globe will say "we need to do something like THAT."

Social media flacks will publish astoundingly mundane things about their personal information gathering and processing habits. A few of them may actually think someone cares. Seriously.

Somebody somewhere will use a social network to do something that will do a lot of good for a lot of people, but very few people will notice it.

And the best in the social media PR business will continue to slowly, quietly, build relationships with online opinion leaders in interesting and important communities. They will continue to connect clients and bloggers and they won't rely on just conference calls to do it.

You know, just like 2009.

Blog With Integrity hosts the FTC

On November 10 the folks who brought us Blog With Integrity will be hosting a free webinar featuring Mary Engle, the Associate Commissioner for Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. They will be discussing the new FTC guidance on disclosure and endorsements - this is critical information for bloggers who talk about products and services, as well as the PR and marketing flacks who hock them. They're accepting questions ahead of time so if you want something to be answered within the time they have, you should ask it early. Just send an email to blogwithintegrity [at] gmail [dot] com.

I've said a bunch of times I really talk more about issues than products, but it's still an enormously valuable discussion. I've let everyone on my social media team know about it, and I hope you'll be able to check in.

Susan Getgood has been the unquestioned leader of this discussion from the marketing side. She's the first person I look to for guidance and perspective on this critical topic. It will have an enormous impact on how marketing and PR professionals work with bloggers and I'm grateful to her and Julie Marsh, Kristen Chase and Liz Gumbinner for their leadership on this.

"How can you work for them?"

As I watch the Blog With Integrity folks continue their steady streak of AWESOME, I sometimes think about that question. I've heard it a few times in the past 7 years. Typically it comes from someone I worked with in politics or health care and they hear me rattle off a client list.

Companies don't hire PR firms because they need help selling sunshine or puppies or high-quality free dental care. Generally speaking, people hire PR firms because they have PR problems. And while very few of them are actually bad people, a great many of them tend to do things that don't make them popular.

If you do a lot of issues management or crisis communications work, as I have, you're probably not interested in just hanging out with people who think exactly the way you do. You have to thrive on bringing different viewpoints together, cobbling diverse interests into coalitions, and finding influential people who cross social and cultural barriers.

But I've been asked how I can work for x company or y organization and still sleep at night. The truth is simple - this is one of very few jobs I can think of where it's important, even encouraged, to give an unvarnished and completely candid opinion to a client whose viewpoint is diametrically opposed to mine. Sometimes it's called "speaking truth to power." Sometimes it's called "tough love." Typically this counsel is confidential, and while it's candid it's also respectful. But if the information is accurate, it's often useful.

As communication has become more social, it's even easier. My job has become connecting clients directly to thoughtful people online. I'm still a middle-man, but I'm not a filter anymore. Yes, I'll try to connect clients with the people who find relevance in what we're discussing, and the odds are much better that the conversation will be a positive one. But there are never any guarantees online. And I wouldn't want it any other way.