Free crisis PR advice for Scientific American online

MEMORANDUM

To:  Mariette DiChristina, Scientific American
From: David Wescott
Re: Censorship on the blog network

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Your online reputation has been significantly damaged by the removal of a post from Dr. Danielle Lee's Urban Scientist blog, the subsequent explanation (and clarification) for the decision, and the resulting discussion.

As you know, Biology-online.org, a member of the Scientific American Partnership Network, solicited Dr. Lee to contribute content on their site without offering financial compensation. When she politely refused, the blog editor there called her an "Urban Whore."  Readers of Biology-online.org have asked questions about this on the site's forum, and an administrator has offered a response, albeit an insufficient one.  Scientific American's response to this situation so far is to remove Dr. Lee's response from her blog.

It does not appear that Dr. Lee was contacted in advance of the decision to censor her post. This is a mistake.  Further, the brief reasoning that has been shared publicly - that the post was not relevant enough to "discovering science" or that it "verged into the personal" - does not withstand even brief scrutiny.

As you know, Dr. Lee's post deals with an issue that is directly relevant to everything that happens at Scientific American online - the actual value publishers place on science communication. The fact that  Dr. Lee draws upon personal experience makes her post more compelling and credible, not less.  Other blog network contributors have already pointed to posts that clearly do not meet the "discovering science" criteria yet remain published. Further, they point to comments from the blog network editor that suggest a "write whatever you want" policy.

This creates a crisis with three specific "audiences." The first audience is internal.  Contributors to the network no longer have clear guidance on criteria or process for publication. The second is an "opinion elite" or audience of those who follow Scientific American closely and can impact its reputation within the scientific community. These peers view censorship as a last resort, and are not convinced of any imminent threat Dr. Lee's post posed to the blog network to merit its immediate removal.  Finally, the public at large is an important audience.

In this regard, the coverage in Buzzfeed is particularly damaging, as it reaches an audience far larger and far more diverse than Scientific American online. This is the audience Scientific American needs to expand its readership and fulfill its mission, but for many of them this story is their introduction to your publication.  They see this as an obvious mistake.  The statement provided to Buzzfeed is passive, vague, and elusive. Further, it puts Scientific American on the wrong side of the discussions about racism and sexism, particularly in science and technology.

As you know, several posts have now emerged criticizing the editors at Scientific American, even some from within the network.  The blog network editor has been uncharacteristically silent.

In the immediate future, you can expect more critical comments from more prominent sources, including organizations that advocate for women and people of color.  You can expect more critical posts from within Scientific American, and possibly even attempts to re-publish Dr. Lee's post verbatim on the network that censored it.  You can expect departures from the blog network. You can expect individuals to look much more closely into the relationship you have with Biology-online.org and the way in which the editors came to their decision to take down the post. You may see a downturn in the number and quality of submissions for your guest blog. Ultimately, you may see a decline in online traffic and ad revenue.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The editors at Scientific American online should republish Dr. Lee's Post and offer an unqualified apology.  Dr. Lee's post does not likely violate any guidelines set out by her editor, and the quality of writing met appropriate standards.  The statement of apology should also recognize the organization's failure to support Dr. Lee when she was treated disrespectfully by an ad network partner. The embarrassment of admitting you were wrong, even now, is far less damaging than the credibility lost by continuing to defend an indefensible position.

The editors should contact Biology-online.org to express their strong disapproval of the way one of their blog contributors was treated, and review the possibility of terminating this partnership.

The editors should draft a communication to blog network members informing them of the apology offered to Dr. Lee and explaining the process by which the editors came to their decision. They should be available to all network members and other relevant parties for a Q&A session.

The editors should work with the contributors to establish a clear set of guidelines, rights, and responsibilities for publication.

The editors should publish an editorial offering a public and unqualified apology, reinforcing the organization's commitment to free speech, and emphasizing the value of their contributors' work.

The editors should work with a third party with expertise in STEM diversity to convene a discussion on how the publication can support this cause more effectively. There are many individuals and organizations with expertise here.  Veronica Arreola is a good start - she has expertise in the topic, and she is well-regarded in online communities that extend far beyond science.

The editors should strengthen partnerships with journalism advocates, business leaders, and centers of entrepreneurship such as the National Association of Business Incubators to explore new ways to underscore the value of science writing and develop more sustainable business models for freelance science writers.  While this is a long-term project with an uncertain future, taking this or a similar effort will demonstrate Scientific American's commitment to its contributors and a more sustainable financial future for all parties.

Free crisis PR advice for Biology-online.org

MEMORANDUM

To: "Ofek" and the leadership of biology-online.org
From: David Wescott
Re: Correspondence with Dr. Danielle Lee

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Your reputation has been badly damaged by the publishing of recent correspondence with biologist Dr. Lee, in which your blog editor suggests her reluctance to provide content to your site without financial compensation makes her an "Urban Whore."

Her response (along with a copy of the correspondence) was initially posted at her Scientific American blog, but now resides on other sites. The correspondence generated significant conversation on twitter among highly influential figures in the science and sci-comm communities, including some who have contributed to biology-online in the past and now wish to have their content removed. It has also led to critical posts on your own site's forum.  As of Friday evening the conversation continues in earnest.

As you may know, Dr. Lee is a very popular and influential member of her community.  Her writing and outreach skills are well-established and celebrated. She is a leading advocate for diversity in STEM and a role model to many.  She also has exceptional communication skills beyond writing, as evidenced by this video of her, speaking extemporaneously, when asked to finish the sentence "Science is..."



Two significant issues compound the immediate reputational damage for your organization.  First, the absence of a public response, specifically an unqualified apology, suggests you either stand by your comments or you are not organized enough to marshall a response and demonstrate accountability. It should go without saying the tone and word choice in the correspondence was unprofessional and wholly inappropriate. The comments go beyond the issue of compensation for legitimate work product and put you on the wrong side of the discussions on sexism and racism.

Second, Biology-online is part of the Scientific American Partnership Network, and prominent readers are now asking if this relationship led to the removal of Dr. Lee's post from her SciAm blog. As you know this form of censorship will not stand with SciAm's readers.  Scientific American's editors will be compelled to comment publicly on why the post was removed, and this situation poses a threat to their reputation as well.

Two other issues threaten your organization's reputation over the medium-term.  First, the correspondence rekindles a common debate in many online communities about appropriate compensation for quality writing.  While many websites ask for (and often receive) content without financial compensation, authors argue it diminishes the overall value of content overall and damages the livelihoods of even the best freelance writers.  This will diminish your reputation among those you solicit most and ultimately render your business model unsustainable.

Second, the site itself does not meet high standards of transparency, nor does it demonstrate best practices in design. The "webmaster" asserts copyright (i.e., ownership) of all content on the site while not disclosing the webmaster's identity.  The "biology online team" do not provide adequate information of their background, roles or responsibilities.  The site employs an outdated design, rudimentary SEO tactics, and free ad banners and forum scripts. Claims of significant web traffic are unverified.  Text written by the webmaster or staff has numerous errors and typos. The site has no social media assets to allow for more direct and public feedback. Taken in sum the site looks like a small operation that spams writers for content, claims ownership of the effort of others, and attempts to profit while investing as little time or resources as possible.

In the absence of quick remedies, Biology-online can expect continued criticism from prominent online voices, fewer quality contributions, less web traffic, and the potential dissolution of its partnership with Scientific American.  Any traffic spike the site gets right now is almost completely attributed to the controversy. Ultimately, this will hasten the site's demise.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Biology-online leadership should offer a public and unqualified apology to Dr. Lee.  The apology should not only acknowledge the inappropriate word choice, but also clearly recognize the cultural and contextual ramifications of those words. Further, the apology should be attached to a full name - not the "biology-online team" or "webmaster."  It is best placed on the Biology-online blog and promoted via social media channels.

Biology-online should also specify what it has done or will do to ensure accountability.  While this does not mean that Ofek should necessarily lose his job, some action is appropriate to reinforce the notion that biology-online truly values the work of its contributors and treats all people with respect and dignity.

Biology-online should reach out to Dr. Lee and others in the community and ask to have a public, candid discussion about the issues facing freelance writers and content creators, specifically addressing the concerns Dr. Lee raises in her response and developing or affirming "best practices."  It would be best if a third party with more credibility on these issues led the discussion, such as the editors at Scientific American.

Biology-online should offer an apology to the editors at Scientific American for endangering their reputation by association.  There is little doubt that the Sci-Am partnership is significant to your site's credibility, and there is value in preserving that partnership.

Finally, Biology-online should conduct its affairs more transparently and redesign its site to reinforce this value. The site should identify its leadership with full names and clear responsibilities.  It should elaborate and clarify its policies on how it seeks content and why it asserts ownership of others' work product.  It should clearly express how it adds value to your readers and contributors.

Here they go again.

What could go wrong?

Just after the presidential election - the one where all the opinion polls consistently showed President Obama winning and wound up being right - I wrote a post about how the Republican Party is suffering from homophily.  When people of the same stripe isolate themselves, and refuse to acknowledge other opinions or even facts that contradict their priorities or world view, they tend to adopt increasingly extreme positions and interpret reality in a way that doesn't reflect reality. That's why conservatives were shocked that they lost the election then, and why they embrace extreme positions like shutting down the government and defaulting on America's debt now. They even say a default won't hurt. (It will.)

It's more than Dick Morris' ridiculous assertion that Governor Romney was "gonna win by a landslide" because all the polls said President Obama would win. All the conservative pundits got it wrong.

But the best example of conservatives heading to oblivion right now is Erick Erickson. Remember Erickson joked that Obama was a lock once Morris made his prediction. But he took a look at the same polls and made his prediction in November:

I believe Mitt Romney will win Florida, Virginia, and Colorado... I honestly change my mind hourly on Ohio, but my best guess is that Romney wins Ohio and consequently wins the Presidency...

If you take a polling average in Ohio, the President is three points ahead. Republicans tend to do two points better in Ohio than the polling and Democrats tend to do one point worse than the polling. That puts Ohio tied and I think passion for Romney makes up that gap...

I’ve never seen the Republican base more fired up.

So Erickson looked at the polls, all saying President Obama was winning in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio, and predicted Romney victories in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio.

Because of passion.

For Governor Romney.

Now Erickson has looked at poll after poll saying the American people know Republicans are to blame for the latest shutdown of the government.  He sees the polls that show significant drops in support for his party.  He sees the guys at Princeton who accurately predicted the last election say if America voted today, Democrats would easily take back the House of Representatives.  And you can guess what he says:

Polling shows more Americans blame the GOP than Barack Obama. I think this means the GOP is winning. You’ll need to let me explain.

No, I really won't.

Shutting the government down doesn't just mean we can't go hiking at Yellowstone this week, as much as that sucks.  It means we aren't inspecting food imports or preventing outbreaks of food-borne illnesses.  We're not researching cancer cures.  We're not paying survivor benefits to those who just lost a loved one in Afghanistan. We're not paying thousands upon thousands of people, public and private sector, who are just trying to do their jobs.

Defaulting on America's debt is more than just telling the rest of the world our word isn't good anymore. It adds the one thing today's global financial system simply cannot withstand - a huge, steaming pile of uncertainty.

If politicians can't agree on an annual budget, a "clean," temporary continuing budget resolution has always been the non-controversial, even perfunctory fix. Essentially it says keep things going until we strike an agreement.  When the government needs to sell bonds to meet its cash obligations, raising our agreed-upon debt limits has also been a non-controversial, even perfunctory fix.  People in both parties have voted against both fixes to make a political statement, but never to actually stop either from happening.  They then get to their real work - a budget resolution and a series of appropriations bills. We've actually made progress on both - under this President, the national budget deficit has shrunk dramatically.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives has now equated a functioning government and a stable global financial system as "unconditional surrender" for his political party.  Seriously - if the economy wins, he thinks he loses.

He really needs to get out more.

Another thought.  Today I think about those people in the job I had over a decade ago - Congressional staffer. The younger ones tend to live paycheck to paycheck, like many Americans. A lot of them are being furloughed right now, dealing with any number of financial issues.  They're looking at the "clean" continuing budget resolution the Senate passed with bipartisan support - the one that would give them job stability for at least a little while.  And they're looking at the news reports that say it would pass the House.

Then they're looking at the one guy who won't let the House vote on it under any circumstances.  For some of them he's the boss.  For others he's the head of their political party.  And now he's saying that their job stability, however temporary, is his "unconditional surrender."

I wonder when some of them will start talking to reporters.

Payback's a bitch, Mr. Speaker.

Popular Science comments: not popular

Popular Science has decided to stop feeding the trolls:

Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off. 

It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.

Mixed thoughts here.

Crisis and online PR professionals can easily see the logic in the editors' decision.  We tell brands all the time to control their own platform and not let critics attack them on their own website. There is always some risk in having a Facebook page or a blog that allows unmoderated comments. Brands and journalists have to be transparent to maintain credibility, while anonymous commenters don't have to own their words.  It's not a fair fight.  Further, when resources are scarce and you can't commit to moderating an overwhelming amount of abusive comments, sometimes it's best to shut them down.

The editors at Popular Science have gone a step further, and suggested there is real science to back up their decision.  They cite two studies suggesting basically the following:  blog post comments that assertively expressed a different point of view prompted readers to doubt the credibility of the blog post. They continue:

If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.

Sorry, but that's a bit more of a "logical" extension than I'm ready to accept. There isn't a "butterfly effect" that starts with "bro2001" telling a blogger he sucks and ends with NIH getting gutted.  But it was this line that really gave me pause:

And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

Preventing those who reflect a "grotesque" culture from making comments that cynically undermine doctrine.  That sounds more like a paranoid religious inquisition than something from a group of science advocates. Last time I checked, stifling dissent wasn't much of a recruitment tactic. It certainly doesn't fit the mold of science - even those topics where the data are overwhelmingly clear, like climate change or evolution or vaccines.

In the big picture, closing comments on the PopSci blog isn't going to have a huge impact either way.  The real problem is this - Popular Science isn't really reaching an audience that isn't already interested in science. This decision isn't going to enhance their own credibility with anyone new, because they're not pushing hard to expand their audience.  Very few people in science communication are, and they are really hesitant to start.

Yes, trolls suck, and yes, plenty of people have used sophisticated communications strategies and tactics to obfuscate science for financial or political gain.  But if the editors at Popular Science are interested in good policy, we need more interaction between people who don't agree, not less.  Scientists and science communicators will improve science policy if they conduct more and better outreach.  (And the best way to do that is to work with the people who do outreach for a living.)

Instead, this decision only serves to isolate science advocates further from their critics. It also serves as an excuse for critics to exclude scientists from their discussions. To quote Dr. Alice Marwick, "when people with likeminded beliefs congregate together, they collectively move to a more extreme position."

Trolling is a bush-league tactic performed by cowards. But this decision to further isolate the scientific community doesn't help.

Why is Chipotle running PETA ad campaigns?

Chipotle Mexican Grill has tried very hard to differentiate itself from its perceived competitors by asserting their products are more wholesome.  Their major proof points: they essentially oppose certain farming practices, as well as genetically modified foods (this position is more marketing than science), and their meats are free of antibiotics and hormones.  In pushing this messaging they've angered many in the agriculture world, but they've also gained some allies and done well financially.  The company has launched a new ad campaign to drive home these points, and they've decided to prioritize the digital and social channels their target market prefers.  I think it has some strengths, and one really glaring strategic weakness.

First, Chipotle's new "Scarecrow" ad is simply gorgeous to look at.  Moonbot Studios put together a haunting, engaging story with imagery and music that reminds you of Roald Dahl books.  It focuses on an issue and resists the temptation many brands have to push the company name and logo - in fact, while you do see a familiar chipotle pepper in the video, you really don't see the brand name at all.


Second, Chipotle has produced a companion mobile game app for iTunes. It demonstrates that the company (and its agency) are thinking about their customer base - millennials. Like the video, the game also resists the temptation to push the brand and opts instead for some relatively soft messaging on their proof point issues.

This again demonstrates some knowledge of the target demographic - millennials are turned off by over-the-top corporate messaging.  The game itself is pretty simple - you basically tilt the device to navigate the scarecrow past obstacles - but it's clever, offers casual fun, and isn't at all intrusive.   I don't know what kind of metrics Chipotle has set up to determine success, but the video is approaching 5 million views and has gotten exceptional coverage.

But I noticed something in the ad.  When our scarecrow hero decides to open his own food stand, something is rather conspicuous by its absence - meat.   It's nowhere to be found, either at the scarecrow's house, in his kitchen, or even in the tacos he sells.  It's not just antibiotic-free or hormone free - it's completely gone.

It's not in the game, either.  Scarecrow is moving crates of "fresh vegetables," at least in the few minutes I tried the game.

It's obvious Chipotle gave this ad campaign a lot of thought. They very likely did opinion research before they started making the video.  And their research apparently told them the best way to sell to millennials was to compare meat that was being puffed up with drugs or held captive in boxes with no meat at all.  And yet Chipotle's top-selling items have beef, pork or chicken in them.

In this amazing ad campaign, with all the resources behind it and the earned media around it, Chipotle is distancing itself from its own product.  Somewhere there are people in a PETA office high-fiving each other.

I find this even more confusing than the time Chipotle said maybe it's ok for their vendor farms to treat sick animals with antibiotics, and then quickly said actually it wasn't.  (I care deeply about antibiotic resistance issues, but someone please tell me why it's ok to refuse to treat a sick animal.)

Overall, I think the folks at Chipotle (and Moonbot) should be very pleased with their campaign and the results thus far.  Over the long term, however, any marketing strategy that wants consumers to forget that you sell something isn't sustainable.

The Butt Fumble FOR SCIENCE

Female Role Models XI

Dave Winer is a really smart guy.  The ideas he had decades ago help us share information online today.  If you've ever used an online news feed or a blog or subscribed to a podcast, you've likely benefited from Winer's work. Winer is also an advocate for some great causes in technology and communication - open source programming, innovation in journalism, and free speech.

But he really screwed up when he asked, "Why are there so few women programmers?"

OK, maybe not when he asked.  More like when he answered:

Now, I'm sure there is sexism, probably a lot of sexism. But I also think there's something about programming that makes many women not want to do it. Here's a theory why that might be.

Programming is a very modal activity. To be any good at it you have to focus. And be very patient. I imagine it's a lot like sitting in a blind waiting for a rabbit to show up so you can grab it and bring it home for dinner.

There is specialization in our species. It seems pretty clear that programming as it exists today is a mostly male thing. Which also raises the obvious question that perhaps we can make it so that it can better-use the abilities of the other half of our species?

And then, apparently oblivious to the irony:

I invite comment on this post, but be careful about saying derogatory things about whole genders, which btw, also includes my gender.

See, this is what happens when otherwise decent guys basically talk out of their ass.

OK, let's try the old "replace-a-word" trick to see how bad this is.  Replace "women" with "African-Americans" and "male" with "white."  After all, African-Americans make up a disproportionately small percentage of the field too.  If Winer said he's "sure there is racism, probably a lot of racism," but this is a "modal activity and to be any good at it you have to focus," and "there is specialization in our species" - we all know where Winer would be right now.  Or at least we'd know what creek he'd be up.

I'm also pretty sure coding isn't the only job that requires patience and focus. For example,  Veterinary medicine is majority female and it's trending even more female, given stats for vet school enrollment.

Of course, I might have trouble "focusing" if one of the biggest names in the history of my field suspects there may be something to my biology that keeps me from being any good at it. For that matter, I might have trouble focusing if I had to endure rape threats and death threats (not to mention a pink slip) if I call people out on their penis jokes at professional conferences.  In fact, I might just go find another line of work.

To his credit, Winer updated his post with a strikethrough and acknowledged "this was not a well written post." He later wrote a clarifying post of sorts - not an apology, but an explanation that "I write what occurs to me" along with a shout-out to his mom.

In what I think was an attempt to be helpful, or at least a peace offering, he tweeted out a link to Girls Who Code.  And that's when Winer and I had an exchange:

Girls Who Code. http://t.co/mSheCJSa5X
— Dave Winer ☮ (@davewiner) August 20, 2013

@davewiner I was kinda wondering when you would tweet that link. I think the question is do you want to be part of the solution?
— David Wescott (@dwescott1) August 20, 2013

@dwescott1 -- that's fairly condescending.
— Dave Winer ☮ (@davewiner) August 20, 2013

@davewiner so was your blog post.
— David Wescott (@dwescott1) August 20, 2013

@dwescott1 -- from your point of view. from mine it was inquisitive.
— Dave Winer ☮ (@davewiner) August 20, 2013

@davewiner OK. bottom line I think we both want to see more women in STEM, particularly coding. how do you do it?
— David Wescott (@dwescott1) August 20, 2013

And that's where we ended.

Winer may not have a lot to say about solutions, but I have some ideas. First, we change the mindset.  If it - ahem - "occurs" to you that the reason women don't do something may be because that something is hard, you probably want to review your thought process a little bit.  For a long time men thought voting was too complicated and profound a task for members of the weaker sex, so prone to flights of fancy or delicate distractions. The same was said about careers in law or medicine. Now apparently it's coding.  Winer is now saying he doesn't care what non-programmers think because programming is so hard and equating his critics with opponents of free speech.  Seriously. Enough already.

Second, confront sexism wherever it exists, especially in the workplace.  Work today is hard enough without people doing everything from suggesting you're not capable to hitting on you to threatening to kill you. When Winer wrote what occurred to him, it's good that people slammed him for it.  (Ironically, I see no examples of someone saying he doesn't have the right to speak, at least not on that thread.)

Third, recognize and celebrate those who bust stereotypes in the workplace (and elsewhere) and serve as role models.  These are the people who show the dudes they can do the work, and give younger people someone to emulate.  People who, as I've said ten times before:

Someone an online mom can show her daughter [or son, a great point my wife made] and say, "See her? See what she's doing? See how she's living in the same world you are, with the same challenges you have, and see how she succeeds? THAT is how you do this. THAT is what I stand for. I want you to be like HER."

People like:

Gina Trapani. She's apparently a friend of Winer's who chalks this whole mess up to a "bad day" that has apparently stretched into a few days now. She founded lifehacker. She's a programmer and and a podcaster and an entrepreneur. And yes, she's smart enough to write code.

Zerlina Maxwell. She's a lawyer, a writer for a bunch of different sites like The Grio, and an advocate for women who have experienced domestic violence.  She's the woman who went on FOX News and said that maybe men should take responsibility for their own actions when it comes to rape - and then got rape threats from men online.  She hasn't backed down - she's experienced domestic violence and she spends her time trying to make it easier for others who have experienced it as well.

Andrea Kuszewski. Not only is she an outstanding curator on Google+, She's an expert in cognitive neuroscience and particularly good at looking at how different types of people think.  I thought that might be especially relevant for this post. She also tells me that the peer-reviewed research that looks at differences in how women and men think suggests women are more patient. Funny how that works.

Darlene Cavalier. Just another one of those perky blonde cheerleaders.  We all know the type, right?  The one with the masters degree from the Ivy League school, the emmy-award winning series, the gig at Discover Magazine, and the business startup?  Dime a dozen.  Darlene has devoted her career to improving science literacy and encouraging young people, particularly young women, to go into STEM careers.

Worlds collide on Loos Tales

Yes, he really wears this stuff everywhere

A couple of months ago I returned to my "old Kentucky home" and the Alltech 29th International Symposium in Lexington. It's a wonderful event - the largest (and arguably most diverse) conference in Kentucky each year - and it's put together by a relentlessly entrepreneurial, socially conscious and hard-working group of people.  I'm proud to have done some work for them.

I was at the Symposium to give a couple of presentations and attend a discussion dinner on crisis communications.  While there, a friend from Alltech asked me to appear on a radio show hosted by one of the people there covering the event, presumably to talk about crisis communications and how agriculture companies can do a better job talking with consumers. The radio host's name was Trent Loos - I hadn't heard of him before.  "You'll like Trent," my friend said. "He's... interesting."  He said he would introduce me ahead of time and do the show the next morning.  Oh, and he told Trent that I spent some time working for Senator Ted Kennedy, and that piqued Trent's curiosity.

I met Trent that night.  He looked like he just walked off the set of The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly - apart, of course, from the nametag he wore that said, "Catherine Keogh, Chief Marketing Officer, Alltech." He sauntered into the discussion dinner, telling the young Hungarian woman who was checking the list of pre-registered attendees that his name was "Dick Cheney" as he walked by.  (It took a minute for the woman to realize what had happened.)  He spent the evening peppering people he hadn't met with questions that seemed more like statements out of the "Things We Say To Annoy Liberals Handbook."  He wasn't thrilled with the "socialist" systems they have over in Europe and didn't mind telling the Europeans in the room about that.  He was even less thrilled with the regulations "Obama is imposing" on American farmers, and with people who "don't know a thing" about how food is made but keep telling farmers how to do their jobs.  Oh, and it's totally cool to eat horses.  Yes, Trent said this in Lexington Kentucky, "Horse Capital of the World."  And yet everyone in the room thought he was funny and charming - even me.

After the dinner, I sheepishly went up to Trent and asked him what he wanted to talk about in the morning. "I don't know," he said. "I'm sure we'll think of something."

So later that night I checked out Trent's website and learned he's on 100 radio stations with an audience of 3 million people. Gulp.

The next morning I went on his show - and he started off by introducing me as a "crisis communicator." Fair enough, I thought, we're gonna talk shop.  I can do this.  First crisis he wanted to talk about?  Newly-elected Congressman, Mark "hiking the Appalachian Trail" Sanford.  So I knew where this was going, and I basically walked right into the question about Senator Kennedy.  Then he started talking about his history of controversy with Robert Kennedy Jr. and made a few sweeping statements that made me think he was trying to push my buttons - things like "men make better leaders than women" -  and comparing the plight of Governor Sarah Palin to that of Secretary Hillary Clinton, and so on.  So I started thinking I was talking with a Rush Limbaugh clone in a cowboy hat.  Even when I agreed with him he said, "well, I don't want to talk about that anymore." The sixth-generation farmer from Nebraska was just looking for an argument with the  liberal Bostonian PR flack to entertain his predominantly rural, conservative audience.

In other words, he was doing his job.  And by not getting tripped up or too emotional about it, I was doing mine.

But then something really weird happened.  We started finding substantive common ground on really important issues and ideas.  Things like how crises are opportunities to show your mettle as a leader. Or how too many people ignore sound science when it comes to making decisions about food or food policy.   Or how an emotionally-driven insistence on certain farming practices can ultimately hurt animals, people, and the environment in the long run.  Most importantly, I think we agree on this - we will never solve the world's most pressing problems if the only people we talk to think exactly the way we do.

I think that's why the premise of Trent's show, Rural Route Radio, is bringing urban and rural perspectives together.  It's why Trent has had me back on his show twice now.  Once he had me on with a doctor and researcher from Texas to talk about how the mainstream media sometimes botches science reporting. Earlier this week he had me on with a farmer from Kansas to talk about everything from feed additives to global food markets to rodeo clowns.

That's also why I've written so much about the single greatest threat to the human race - homophily. It's why I follow smart-but-not-famous thinkers like Ethan Zuckerman and  Alice Marwick.  It's why I think it's so important for a liberal Bostonian PR flack like me to talk with and listen to moms, scientists, political activists of all stripes, environmentalists, and farmers.

So yeah, Trent may look and act the part and he may spout the typical right-wing talking points from time to time.  But there's no doubt in my mind that he's sincere about solving problems and about preserving and protecting a way of life that has served him and the generations before him very well.  More importantly, there are very few people today who actively seek out perspectives they don't share with the intent of having an honest, substantive discussion. In my experience at least, Trent is one of those people.

Tell you what, though - if he ever disses the Red Sox on his show I'm gone.

Global business has a huge gay problem

The organizers of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi have good news for makers of packaged dairy products - they're looking for a corporate partnership. It's an opportunity to associate a brand with an event that celebrates the highest ideals of the human condition - excellence, respect, friendship - and gain instant and overwhelming brand exposure on a global scale.  

As is often the case with international sporting events, however, the laws or behavior of the host country have raised serious concerns.  This time, it's a new law in Russia that outlaws spreading "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations."  There is another new law that can send you to jail for three years for "offending religious feelings." In effect, you can be arrested in Russia for appearing in public with your gay partner, giving a public display of affection, wearing a rainbow flag pin, or simply speaking your mind on this issue.   President Obama criticized the law recently on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

My longtime friend John Aravosis has been all over this issue for some time now.  He's pointed out that the Russian Sports Minister has said athletes who violate this law will be arrested and he's helped lead an effective PR campaign against Russian brands in response.  He's documented violence against gay people in Russia since the law was passed and he's highlighted the plight of gay olympic athletes in the Games next year.

But here's the thing - athletes are actually a small minority of the people who go to the Olympic Games in an official capacity.  They're vastly outnumbered by staff, media, and sponsor representatives.  Prominent athletes such as Johnny Weir are actually protected by their celebrity.  He's not going to be carried away in handcuffs for kissing his partner after winning a medal.

But that young, unknown  foreigner working in a sponsor's hospitality booth might. And that arrest may be captured on a cell phone video, and shared worldwide.  And that person's employer will have a lot of difficult questions to answer.

Now that the Russian law is getting more attention and the Russian Sports Minister's comments are on the record, any "packaged dairy products" company that partners with the Games will clearly be making a judgement call on the merits of brand exposure versus human rights.  Good luck with that.

The companies that have already announced partnerships with the 2014 Games may have a little bit of an "out" from a reputation perspective - they can say they're already locked into an agreement, that they oppose the law, they have a track record on human rights, and so on.  But even they will have to provide employees with some information or messaging that will run counter to their professed values.

People who attend the Olympics on behalf of a sponsor will get the typical "here's how you stay safe in a foreign country" handbook and the "you're here to represent the brand, not make a political statement" lecture.  But companies are going to have to tell their employees who work at the Games things like "if you're gay, please be discreet."  They will have to advise against the kinds of words and actions that straight people take for granted. They may even suggest that gay employees not take part.  That's not going to sit well with employees or many consumers.

If a sponsor's employee is arrested under the new law, it's going to create a new, unique set of challenges for that company.  There's an obvious and important need to follow the laws of the countries where you operate. But legal compliance and reputation defense aren't always aligned.  So here are some things companies can do ahead of time to mitigate a crisis:

• Review company anti-discrimination policies and other rules that affect GLBT employees. If you're leaving someone out, you better have a good reason for it.  John Aravosis and his colleagues will be taking a look, and he will be telling your customers.
• Have your code of conduct for the Games reviewed by general counsel AND by your communications staff.  These internal messages are bound to get noticed by people outside the company.  Make sure you're not saying anything that could get misconstrued. 
• Let your employees and customers voice their concerns.  Have a personal presence in the company and online to make sure people know who you are and that you care. Give direct, specific and personalized answers to direct, specific and personalized questions. 
• Most importantly, BUILD RELATIONSHIPS NOW. Know the legal system in Russia, the security apparatus for the Games, the appropriate staff at the relevant embassies and consulates.  Make sure if there's a legal issue you're ready to deal with it.  Furthermore, get to know the leading voices in the mainstream, GLBT, and digital media on these issues.  Ask to talk with them to share what you're about.  Don't introduce yourself to an opinion leader by asking for something or trying to explain yourself.  

Right now is the time to act.  Not next year.  Right now.

Informed opinions: surplus to requirements?

How Americans view climate scientists

My brilliant pal Jamie Vernon alerted me to a column written by Tamsin Edwards, a climate scientist at the University of Bristol entitled "Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies." I really don't mean to insult someone who has clearly done so much to help educate people on this critical issue, but I just can't endorse her approach to policy.

I hope you read the entire piece because I don't want to be accused of taking quotes out of context, but here are some of the "high" points.  Dr. Edwards writes:

I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence...

Even scientists who are experts – such as those studying the interactions between climate, economy and politics, with "integrated assessment models" – cannot speak for us because political decisions necessarily depend on values...

To me, then, it is simple: scientists misuse their authority if they publicise their preferred policy options. 

To be fair, I can't tell if Dr. Edwards is only applying this argument to climate scientists.  I don't know where she stands on the American Academy of Pediatrics' advocacy for mandatory vaccines to enter public schools, or the National Science Teachers Association's public position on teaching evolution and not creationism in public schools, or even Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson's public opposition to cuts in NASA's budget.  Maybe she thinks these specific policy issues aren't multifaceted or don't require "values" to debate.

I do agree with Dr. Edwards about something: trust in science has been diminished in the debate over climate.  But it's for two specific reasons.  First, too many climate scientists are actually taking Dr. Edwards' advice and sitting out the difficult conversations where leaders hash out actual, specific solutions.  Second, the "advocacy" from many climate scientists has just plain sucked.  A disorganized group of people with little to no experience in communications or politics have prioritized mediocre tactics and scattershot messaging over a coherent and well-executed campaign strategy. In my experience as a communications professional, I think you lose virtually all your credibility not by having a "skin in the game" or an interest to disclose, but by outlining a problem without suggesting a solution.

Meanwhile, climate science's opponents have virtually no credible analysis on their side, yet they continue to just plain crush this community through a multi-faceted campaign of mass communication, obfuscation, intimidation, and lobbying.

Sadly, I think essays like the one written by Dr. Edwards is just the latest example of climate scientists being figuratively beaten into submission. Standing up for your beliefs is a courageous thing to do, and we need those who have the most knowledge on this topic to stand with us.

Reporting abuse on Twitter and owning your words

I guess Jane Austen gets some fellas all rapey.

At least that's what Caroline Criado-Perez learned when she led an online campaign to put Austen's likeness on the back of a 10-pound banknote in the UK.  Her successful online petition to put Austen on the note got her more than 50,000 signatures - and about 50 rape threats an hour via Twitter for two days.  One man has been arrested so far.  It's as if some guys took a look at the countless stories in the Everyday Sexism project and decided to prove it could always be worse.

As angry as Ms. Criado-Perez is at the men who sent threats, she was even more upset with Twitter - because the social network's "report abuse" function is cumbersome and the overwhelming volume of harassment basically forced her off the platform.   So Twitter is responding by adding a "report abuse" button on all its platforms (the iPhone client already has this feature).

Of course, as the Daily Dot points out in this excellent piece, this idea has pros and cons. Trolls already use this feature on other social networks to their advantage, inundating their targets with hundreds of false reports. Trolls who see their accounts blocked simply create new ones. Twitter will quickly find itself inundated with requests to review thousands of tweets in dozens of languages every day.

Ultimately I think we will all be hurt by this. We are so caught up in the information age of the 21st Century that we've forgotten what Daniel Webster said in 1847: "Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint."

First, we will likely see another attempt to hold these chuckleheads accountable by outing them - like what Adrian Chen did to "violentacrez" or the Predditors idea or the occasional "racists on Twitter" piece at Jezebel. I'm waiting for someone to publicize an outing and shaming site with users on LinkedIn, where it will probably have the greatest effect. Imagine being a recruiter with this kind of resource - suddenly able to cross-reference anyone who applies for an opening with the creepy photos he took or the sexist rants he launched on Facebook or Twitter.  I already ask a question to every person I interview for a job at my company - "is there anything on any of your social media profiles that you wouldn't want a client to see?" (I don't ask for passwords or anything like that.) This may become part of a standard background check.

Of course, there will be another backlash to this.  Some will say, rightfully or not, "it wasn't me."  Worse, we will again see the DDoS attacks and other hacks that can bring down the sites of entire companies - like what happened to SendGrid, the company that used to employ Adria Richards until she tweeted a picture of two guys at a professional conference who were being less than professional back in March. One of those guys lost his job, and the men's rights hacker collective demanded an eye for an eye.  Richards may be seeking legal recourse with the company, but I haven't seen her say anything online since.

Ultimately, we will lose more of what's left of our online privacy.  We already (often unwittingly) surrender our location, political affiliation, shopping preferences, religious beliefs, financial information, and even our health history to any number of companies.   It's not that hard to find even more information, even if you don't use your real name online - just as Jezebel did.   More people will learn how to employ these tactics, leading to more "outings" over more perceived transgressions.

There is, of course, a possible way out.  I always think of Liz Gumbinner when I mention it, though Kristen Chase, Julie Marsh and Susan Getgood deserve credit as well.

Own your words.

That's the mantra of the project they started years ago called Blog With Integrity.  I suppose it's the online equivalent of "I'm David Wescott and I approve this message."

The next time you see someone making a threat or an overtly sexist or racist remark online - even if it's not directed toward you - just ask them to share their real name and where you might follow up on the discussion.  Ask them if it's so important to rape someone would they share who they really are. Maybe share something about themselves so we can understand their perspective, like where they go to school or where they work or live. Ask them to have the courage of their convictions.  Ask them if they're willing to have a civil discussion in an open forum with people who may or may not think the way they do. If their ideas are valid and reasoned, perhaps they could enlighten the rest of us.

Just ask them, and see what they say.  After all, everyone knows what Caroline Criado-Perez thinks, and she's willing to put her reputation on the line for her ideas. Do her critics hold themselves to that standard?

Perhaps I'm being naive.  I'd love to know what others think.

Personal accountability, crisis communication and the Patriots

Is there more to it than rings?

UPDATE: Consensus from the media is that Belichick did a very good job and put a lot of questions to rest.  I doubt the questions will stop, and the organization still has some work to do with internal communications and community relations.  But it seems as though there's been a turning point.

A lot of people think the coach of the New England Patriots has some explaining to do.  He will have his chance this Wednesday at 2pm when he meets the media a couple of days before training camp starts for the New England Patriots.

Many Americans and most American sports fans are aware of the horrific crimes that authorities allege former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez committed earlier this year. However it's not the only challenge to confront this team in the offseason. The so-called "Patriots Way" of obtaining talented players with questionable backgrounds at a discounted price has backfired in the worst possible fashion. So once again we have a crisis communications case study from the world of sports unfolding before us.

So far I think the team's reaction to the crisis has been pretty good, though not perfect.  They took quick and decisive action at an appropriate time, even though they would take a larger "salary cap" hit by doing so, making them a bit less competitive on the field.  They made a (largely symbolic) act of contrition by holding an event where fans could trade in their Aaron Hernandez jerseys for the jerseys of other team members.  Most importantly, the CEO made a public statement that was sincere and candid, acknowledging shortcomings and promising changes.

Where they've fallen short, however, is in the area of transparency. Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, who everyone knows makes the decisions on personnel, has had nothing to say about the Hernandez case (or about the other player with serious legal troubles, cornerback Alfonso Dennard). The team also came very close to signing another player with an, ahem, gun problem before backing out at the last minute.  They haven't said why. 

So I think it's smart to have the coach talk to the media about this ahead of camp, address the issues now, and eliminate the distraction as much as possible. However, Belichick isn't known for his warmth and grace at the podium or on the field. He's earned a reputation as someone who refuses to share information and stonewalls the media as much as possible. 

I think Belichick needs to strike a careful balance here. He has a lot of audiences to worry about. Players want to see a man who won't sell them out if they get into trouble. Fans want to see wins, but the community at large wants to know the coach understands he made a huge mistake here.  Further, the team could still get sued for any number of reasons. The team wants to draw a line between what they should have known and not just what they shouldn't but what they couldn't.

If the coach does what he's typically done on controversial topics - basically evade the question with a throwaway phrase like "I can only talk about the players that are here" - his reputation will rightfully get crushed.  This one is different. Someone is dead. If the coach begs off like that, the media will immediately go to the victim's family for a reaction. I think the coach will acknowledge the situation and express his sympathies for the victim's family.  I think he may acknowledge that he messed up, and he may echo what his boss said about re-evaluating how they evaluate players,  though I doubt he will get into detail.  I'm not convinced that's enough, but we will see.   Specifically, I think someone will ask him about how he holds himself accountable, and I think Belichick will defer to his boss. 

Finally, I'm very curious to know how the team has handled internal communication - not just to players but to all the employees.  Hernandez may be the player with the worst offense, but he's certainly not the first player on the team with a troubled history of violence. Employees deserve to know that they work in a safe environment, and that the leadership of the team isn't looking the other way with a maniac just because he can catch a football. I'm a bit surprised this hasn't come up.

We will see what happens Wednesday...

I'm a sucker for a good story.

And David put his hand in his bag, and thence took a stone...

Always have been.

One of my favorite stories is, obviously, the story of the 2004 Boston Red Sox. Specifically, the American League Championship Series, starting late in game 4.  The Yankees had just beaten the Red Sox in three straight games - none of them terribly close - and they were poised to win their decisive fourth game and move on to the World Series. The Yankees had the lead in the ninth inning, and brought on their closer, Mariano Rivera, possibly the greatest relief pitcher to ever play the game.  Mighty Goliath stood on the mound, but an overmatched Kevin Millar somehow managed to draw a walk.  Then speedy David Roberts replaced Millar as a pinch runner, and off Roberts went, stealing second as if he had just been shot from a sling. The story continues with an improbable run of four straight wins by the Red Sox, complete with examples of heroism and symbolism and colorful characters and the good guys winning and lessons on perseverance and tenacity and good humor and all that.

The best part of the story, of course - it actually happened.  It's all verifiable. If it weren't true, well, it wouldn't be much of a story.

Virginia Heffernan has a favorite story too, arguably even better than the 2004 Red Sox.  It's one of the greatest stories ever written. It's so good it's been around in one form or another for thousands of years. It's so good that we use characters and vignettes from it as our metaphors and everyone knows what we're talking about.  People cite the story when they're building hospitals or volunteering in homeless shelters or growing the food we all eat or searching for a cure for AIDS.  The story provides some answers for all the big questions like how we got here and why. And, apparently, Ms. Heffernan thinks that stories this amazing, stories like this that have stood the test of time, really have to be at least somewhat true - at least this story, anyway.  Even if you really can't prove that any of the specific details actually happened.  Plenty of very smart people basically think the same thing.

Heffernan is exceptionally smart - especially when it comes to knowing a good story.  You can't fake your way to a Harvard Ph.D. in anything. She has an accomplished career as a critic.  She writes good stories, too - both fact (the script of a documentary about Matthew Shepard) and fiction (The Underminer).  I think Heffernan is smart enough to understand that while a good story is typically better when it's true, not all great stories have to be.  Further, I think Heffernan understands the problems she creates for herself when we discount things that are verifiable because we like the better story.

George Zimmerman believed a compelling story too, one he heard for years.  He believed the story that says there are good guys and bad guys - and bad guys act a certain way and maybe even look a certain way. He bought totally into that narrative, and he thought of himself as one of the good guys. He believed the story that says people have to stand up for their communities against people who don't belong there.  I'd even bet that some of the characters or metaphors in Heffernan's favorite story show up from time to time in Zimmerman's story.

He believed that story so much that he had to be the "hero" and ignore instructions from the police to stay in his car.  He believed that story so much that a jury just determined that he legitimately feared for his life when he encountered a teenager armed only with an iced tea and some skittles, and shot him in the chest. Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place," according to a juror.  After all, this is the power of a good story too.

Heffernan isn't Zimmerman, I know.  But Zimmerman is a salient, tragic example of what can happen when we don't try to verify facts, when we simply buy into the compelling narrative, and we act on those beliefs. After all, that same story Heffernan and so many of us love so much has been cited to justify all sorts of unspeakable crimes as well.

When Heffernan "outed" herself as a creationist of sorts, she got the extra helping of snarky indignation and hyper-analysis from the science community you'd expect. Scientists and their advocates were, in my view, justifiably angry.  I understand the frustration but honestly I thought it wasn't constructive. Because the backlash to the backlash started up just as quickly, and here we go again.  It reminded me of the time the Miss USA pageant contestants were asked about teaching evolution in schools and then they got mocked. It wasn't until some friends and I got together to provide an actual, alternative answer from some pretty incredible women that anyone did anything constructive about it.   And even then, that pageant video has been viewed more than a million times and the snarky response more than 2 million times.  Our thoughtful response has been viewed only 45,000 times.

So since it's now in fashion to spout controversial beliefs that some people won't like, here's mine.

Science needs Virginia Heffernan.

Seriously, it does. Science needs better storytellers.  Sure, we have some people who tell great stories - folks like Maryn McKenna, Ed Yong, and Deborah Blum. We have plenty of people who can tell those smaller-scale stories like why a curveball curves or how a chameleon changes colors. But Heffernan understands the elements of a great narrative.  She understands the impact of a story on a society, on a culture. She knows how to push people's buttons. She has relationships with top-tier media people. She's smart. She's credible with people scientists don't always reach.  She can help us craft the stories we need to craft to inspire young people, improve the quality of life of people everywhere, and even save lives.

The stakes are as high as they've ever been.  Right now, parents aren't vaccinating their kids because they like the story that actress spins about autism. School-age girls are getting pregnant because our "comprehensive" sex education isn't all that comprehensive - thanks in no small part to the people who take Ms. Heffernan's favorite story really seriously.  People are investing in buildings right on the coastline even though we know the coastline will be further inland in a matter of years. And yes, we're failing our children by not giving them the education they need to succeed in high-skill, high-wage life science jobs.

I think science has all the necessary elements of an overwhelming, awe-inspiring narrative. It has characters millions of people don't know about but should.  It has history, conflict, heroes and villains, miracles, and everything else a great story needs.

Plus it's true. And we can prove it. We need someone as smart and talented as Virginia Heffernan to help us tell the story.

There, I said it.

Saying 'I'm sorry' is the first step...

He should charge $350 an hour

There sure have been some interesting apologies in the news lately - some good, some mediocre, some really bad.  They're all case studies in crisis communications - a discipline that can be rather lucrative for PR folks like me.

As these stories have played out we've also seen a lot of analysis  of just how well the bad actors have apologized.  As someone who provides counsel in this niche of communications from time to time, I'm often surprised at just how often people mess this up. More specifically, I'm surprised at how often people overthink it.

If you have a preschool-age kid you're probably familiar with Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood - the cartoon evolution of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood from PBS.  They use anecdotes and catchy little songs to help teach our little ones some basic life lessons and strategies.

My personal favorite Daniel Tiger song: "Saying I'm sorry is the first step - then how can I help?"

For brands, individuals, and organizations, crisis communications is really that simple.  The biggest pitfalls in crisis communications happen when people complicate things beyond what you tell 4-year-olds.

Of course I realize lawyers get involved, and there can be a lot of money at stake.  Of course people may think the whole story isn't out there, or even that they did nothing wrong.

In each of these examples, though, someone did or said something clearly wrong.  Kickstarter apologized, changed its policies, and made a more-than-symbolic gesture of contrition. They actually gained esteem as a result.

Ron Lindsay sincerely apologized but did nothing more.  The response has basically been "ok, let's move on," but those offended by his comments have actually suggested a way he could help - supporting a future conference - and I don't know that we've heard anything from Lindsay on that.

Paula Deen used the words "I'm sorry" - but somewhat less than convincingly, and she's clearly not interested in finding out how she can help.  If anything, she seems to think she's the one owed an apology, describing those who have made claims against her as "evil." And she continues to lose esteem - and money.

Seriously, Daniel Tiger's on to something.

Female Role Models X

Forgive me for not writing this sooner - I was in Ireland doing very important things like learning how they make Guinness.

So some double-chinned right-wing political hack whined about more women earning more money and times were so much better when June fetched Ward's slippers and brandy each night and things are so much worse now because of women with hairy armpits or something.  I'm honestly not that worked up about it because I've seen this guy before and he's basically had nothing useful to say about anything ever.

But then the Internet exploded and this guy got all kinds of facetime on TV and was a focal point on all the very serious political magazines - and of course all that did was reinforce the idea that the more stupid you sound, the more attention you get.

So it's time once again to respond to this garbage in the way I think we all should - celebrate some female role models you may not know right now but hopefully will soon.  This is the tenth installment of this series, but to refresh your memory here's the very vague criteria I use:

Someone an online mom can show her daughter [or son, a great point my wife made] and say, "See her? See what she's doing? See how she's living in the same world you are, with the same challenges you have, and see how she succeeds? THAT is how you do this. THAT is what I stand for. I want you to be like HER."

If you want to see all the role models I've featured you can check out the blog page or my FMR pinboard.   This edition's role models include:

Emily Finke.  The first thing you may notice about Emily is she kinda looks like Bat Girl.  Or maybe someone out of a Steampunk novel. But even if you aren't awed by her mad cosplay skilz, talking with Emily you quickly realize this forensic anthropologist/science communicator/feminist is really smart and always doing something to improve the lives of others. She challenges people to think of new and different things in new and different ways.

Carrie Mess.  People need to know more about where their food comes from.  That's where Dairy Carrie comes in.  She's a dairy farmer and a prolific blogger.  Dairy farming today isn't just waking up to sit on a stool and milk the cows. There is a TON of science and logistics and business and even politics involved.  It's long, hard work.  I met Carrie at the Alltech Symposium and I was struck not only by her friendly demeanor but by how accessible she makes the complicated subject of dairy farming.  She's a great ambassador for her industry.  My science communication friends could learn a lot from her.

Heather Barmore. I must really admire Heather because I rarely say nice things about Yankees fans.  She's an education lobbyist who shuttles between Albany and New York.  She's built a sizeable following on political issues and she's quite partisan - but because she runs with the BlogHer crowd more than the Netroots crowd she has great pals across the political spectrum.  That's a hard thing to pull off these days.  Her blog isn't just political rants, either - her writing displays more thoughtfulness, productive introspection, and courage than you typically find in personal/political blogs.

Cecily Kellogg. The Uppercase Woman is smart, outspoken, and fearless.  When she's not giving you excellent tips on how to improve your writing online or demonstrating that she's already figured out the online marketing tools you'll read about in the tech press next week, Cecily is taking on really tough issues and sharing all of the facets of family life.  You know Cecily is influential and important because she has critics who don't like her outspoken nature, they let her know about it, and yet she keeps doing her thing. Oh, and she has pink hair.

Yes, she really had to die.

An artist's interpretation of a crisis.  Sorry, Betty.

This week I led a mini-crisis simulation at the Alltech 29th Annual International Symposium panel on crisis management.  On the panel were three people who had outstanding reputations in this area - Gavin Megaw, Liz Kynoch, and Pat Wall.

If you're not familiar with a crisis simulation, it's typically when you get a bunch of people who are responsible for leading an organization and you walk them through a fictional catastrophe to see how they'd react and hopefully discover weaknesses in your organization that you can shore up.  Most companies basically think of a crisis that involves a plant fire or something - typically they set up a phone tree, call 911, and let the authorities take over.

That's a terrible situation, but in my mind that's not a crisis.  I crisis is really a loss of control. Terrible things happen.  Sometimes people die.

So I wanted to think of something horrific at the introduction of the scenario - something that would get the audience's attention, and something that would have an instant and enormous impact online.

So I killed Betty White.  A few people actually chuckled, but if you know the Internet you know what this would do to Twitter.

Then I killed 32 people who were residents of a US-based nursing home chain.

Then another 45 in Brazil.

Then dozens more in the UK.

Of course, just before the slaughter of innocent grandparents, I got a volunteer to serve as the CEO of "Big Mama Foods," the company who made the food that killed them all.  Immediately after selecting the CEO, the audience went out for a coffee break - and the CEO was ambushed by a camera crew.  When the audience returned, they were treated to a video of a "breaking news" story - that dozens of people had been killed by food linked to Big Mama - and there was the CEO, who just moments ago was chatting and joking with everyone there, up on the screen trying to explain why Betty White and hundreds more just died.

The whole thing went from Betty to Television in about 7 minutes.

From there it got worse - recalls, lawsuits, boycotts, global trade embargoes.  Even Nancy Grace announced tonight's top story on Twitter - "Who Killed Betty White?"

By then, no one was laughing.  And I kept reminding people that something like this can really happen - because each segment of my scenario was based on something similar that actually did.

The good news is our CEO had a great board of advisors in Gavin, Liz and Pat - explaining what is happening at every stage of a very real and very public crisis. They talked about their roles as communicators, operations leaders, regulators, and scientists. They talked about all the people you have to keep informed - key customers, shareholders, regulators, the media, employees, and so on.

Gavin provided people with a great checklist, and the people at Alltech provided their own crisis management plans for everyone to look at.  Liz and Pat provided their leadership perspectives and advice.  I just really wanted to convey one thing - in the digital age, a crisis moves at breakneck speed.

The next day, I spoke with Trent Loos at Rural Route Radio about it in great detail. A crisis is a lot of things.  But to me, more than anything else a crisis is a chance to show the world your mettle. If you're prepared, the world will know.  If you're not, the world will know that too.

iCrisis, version 2.0

Three years ago I predicted the coming armageddon for brands by discussing databases and  highlighting the Good Guide mobile app.  If you haven't heard of it, that's the app where you scan the barcode of a box of cereal in a store with your smartphone and the app tells you that the cereal manufacturer "violated the Clean Water Act" or has some controversial ingredient in it. It also offers any number of "higher rated" substitute products that more closely meet the app founder's standards.  Back then I tried it and then I wrote:

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.

The good news about Good Guide is the database is responsibly curated - while the owners of the database are of the west-coast, granola-crunchy variety, they are at least open to discussion with people from other points of view or agendas.

That's all changed.  Welcome to Buycott, the new wild west of social activism.

This is the app brands should have spent the past three years preparing to address.  It's the app that has the best chance to politicize purchasing decisions more than we've ever seen.   It's deep enough to offer tools that sophisticated activists want, like a corporate "family tree" that lets you identify corporate partners and parent companies. It's open enough to let users crowd-source the database and it's social enough to let people start or join causes and specific boycotts.  And it's audacious enough to get good press.

So now when mom walks into a store, she has an entire social movement or two on her phone.  And she has so much more data at her fingertips than just three years ago.  The advice I gave three years ago, however, still applies:

So there are a few things companies should be doing YESTERDAY to protect their reputations and their brands:

• Upgrade your social media monitoring efforts to see what's written about you in all these mobile-accessed databases. Good Guide is a start. Make sure the info is accurate. Contact them if it's not. 

• Build relationships with the folks who make these databases and these apps. Understand their motivation, work with them to make sure you're presented in the best possible light. 

• Partner with credible organizations to build your own databases and applications. Support some of these groups by underwriting some of the cost, providing technical support, and letting them know they can work with you. 

•  Promote responsible efforts to give consumers all the information they want and need to make smart decisions. Consumers reward the companies that advocate for them. 

Or, sit back and wonder why people stopped buying your stuff.

Now it's a bit harder to build those relationships, but at least we know where to look.

My Old Kentucky Home

Fresh off my presentation at the Animal Agriculture Alliance and a quick stop in Chicago for an IPR/Page Society talk, I'm looking forward to heading back to Lexington, Kentucky next week for the Alltech 29th Annual International Symposium. I lived and worked in Lexington for five years and it will be great to catch up with some friends, clients, and colleagues.

The Symposium is interesting because it brings together companies from every link in the food supply and distribution chain, and you're just as likely to meet a lifelong farmer as you are a celebrated biochemist.  Of course, I wouldn't know the first thing to do on a farm or in a laboratory, but there's a place for me here too - the people who attend Symposium want people to understand the value of what they do, so communication plays an important role here.

I'm excited to serve on a pair of panels for the symposium - one on food marketing and branding, the other on crisis communications.  I confess I'm a little intimidated by the impressive reputations accomplishments of the other panelists (The crisis panel alone features Gavin Megaw, Liz Kynoch, and Patrick Wall), but I see my role on each panel as challenging convention a little bit. Without giving too much away, I want to bring the people at Symposium into direct, unfiltered contact with the people and the experiences I think they should care about most.   It's a bit of a gamble but the organizers and other panelists have indulged me so I'm very grateful.  

Of course, if the ideas flop everyone knows it's my fault, so I guess there's no pressure on them.  Stay tuned.