28 August 2010

24 August 2010

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.

Hello, NW CleanTech!

Welcome to the Greenosphere!
Some colleagues of mine in Seattle who work in social media and green PR decided to launch a little side project they're calling NW CleanTech.  I couldn't be happier for them.  I'll let them describe it:
The mission for NW CleanTech is simple: create an online environment to facilitate conversation between the players in cleantech – from emerging inventors to established innovators – and help strengthen industry cohesion in the Northwest.
What I like most about NW CleanTech is that it's not another green PR blog or another social media blog.  Rob Gara and Evan Scandling may know green PR, and they may know social media, but they're building an online home for people in the cleantech sector talk about the things that are most important to them.  It seems that paying huge PR firms a lot of money isn't always top of mind with cleantech execs.  (Shocking, yes, I know.)   They're looking at industry trends, venture capital demands, policy issues.

They've also decided to focus on the American Northwest, a region of the country that has made a concerted effort to be a leader in this sector. They've built a valuable map of the industry's regional footprint.  They're encouraging regional industry leaders to use the site to discuss important policy and business issues, and they've already gotten some impressive participation.

NW CleanTech also has a valuable Twitter feed and a Facebook page if you're looking for updates that fit your social media persuasion.  I've had the chance to watch Rob and Evan build this project basically from the day they thought of it, and I'm very impressed with their patience and persistence.   I hope you'll check it out - whether you live in the Northwest or not.

23 August 2010

My Free PR Advice to Scientists: It's Not Just About Media Training

I've been reading a lot of smart stuff from Chris Mooney  and I think it's great that he and others are working diligently to "media train" scientists.  Communication skills are obviously critical if scientists want to demonstrate the relevance and importance of their research, or if they want to position themselves as a valuable resource for the media as stories develop.  I hope Chris does more of it and I hope it goes well.

But here's the simple truth: "Big Science" is losing too many of the battles that really matter, and if all scientists do is learn how to speak in sound bites and wear the right color shirt on camera, it's only going to get worse.  I'm not just talking about the back-and-forth debates about climate change or evolution or the latest miracle cure for whatever.  I'm talking about the fact that science is marginalized or even condemned by people who make decisions for all of us.

I'm talking about Governor Bobby Jindal thumbing his nose at sound science and actually making things worse in the Gulf of Mexico - yet being lauded as some kind of hero by pundits who don't know any better.  I'm talking about the continued muzzling of scientists by government officials - you know, the people who claim they just don't want to release science that hasn't been peer reviewed yet and then go ahead and release non-reviewed reports that say everything's pretty awesome. (It's not.)  I'm talking about a Congress that firmly believes math is something for the other guy to worry about.  (Yes, I know Chris already wrote a book about this.)

I wrote about this last month:
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...
 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.
I'll say it again: There is no plan.  There is no leader.  There is no coordinated effort to assertively place the other side on the defensive.  Scientists and their allies are "fighting back," and rather feebly at that; they should be striking first.  A handful of leaders should be thinking about what they want, who they should influence (and how) to get what they want, and what they'll do to make sure their adversaries' strategies implode.

I would cherish the opportunity to get together with a handful of scientists/bloggers/writers who are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.  Any takers?

18 August 2010

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.

16 August 2010

The post in which I lose friends

I realize this is slightly off-topic, but a few people have asked my opinion on the "mosque at ground zero" debate, and since I have some experience in "crisis" communications and some in politics, I can sum up my opinion on the issue thusly:

You either support the first amendment or you don't.

12 August 2010

I need pom poms. STAT.

I'm very pleased to share that I've been invited to contribute a weekly link post to Science Cheerleader.  I've mentioned Darlene Cavalier on this blog before - she's a passionate advocate for science literacy and citizen participation in science, she's an entrepreneur, and she's a writer.  She explains why she founded the site:
...to unite the citizen’s desire to be heard and valued, the scientist’s growing interest in the public’s involvement, and government’s need to garner public support. The Science Cheerleader serves to get the conversation going, rally the troops, solicit views from all sides and change the tone of science and science policy in this country.
The site's name plays on her former role as a cheerleader for the Philadelphia 76ers and her advocacy for scientists and science generally. She's working to break down stereotypes of all kinds - things like "science is for nerds" or "pretty girls are stupid."

I met Darlene at ScienceOnline 2010 where she launched Science For Citizens, a website designed to connect researchers with non-researchers to collaborate on engaging and important scientific projects. Science For Citizens was accepted the Good Company Ventures business incubator program just a few months ago, and I'm confident you'll be hearing a lot more about this project.  Darlene is also the motivating force behind ECAST, Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology.  In a way, ECAST is an attempt to resurrect and modernize the government's Office of Technology Assessment, something my old boss wanted to do very much.

Darlene and I have talked a bit about advocating for science in communities where it isn't necessarily front and center. I think my role on Science Cheerleader is my first step.  I read a lot of science writing daily (it's actually part of my job), and I'll be sharing links to things that are engaging and don't require a PhD in some multi-syllabic discipline to understand.   I also plan to engage some of my friends in spreading the word in other communities about this great science writing.  Darlene and I have been working with some other people on somewhat more ambitious projects with similar goals, and we'll be rolling them out soon, but I think we agree it makes sense to take it one step at a time.

So I hope you'll take a look at Science Cheerleader - some very smart and engaging people have been contributing there long before I came around - and I hope you take a look at the links.  They'll be published on Wednesdays.

09 August 2010

BlogHer Recap: More Studies Needed

I'm a solitary learner
The obvious top story of BlogHer '10 focused squarely on a charming ten-year-old boy and his aunt and their rather eventful commute and their fundraiser.  And the most frequently used word I heard to describe the conference was "overwhelming" - so many people, so many vendors, so many parties, so much stuff.

I didn't really have much to do with any of that - though I did enjoy catching up with a few people. Instead, I spent my time introducing bloggers to Dr. Angie McQuaig from University of Phoenix (my client) and we discussed the importance of learning styles. And it was actually pretty cool.

As I mentioned earlier, people learn in different ways - some by listening, some by doing, some by reading, and so on.  University of Phoenix is looking at ways to provide material that fits best with the way the individual student learns.  There is a lot of research out there on learning styles - there are several different methods and the field is constantly evolving.  We used a tool that lists seven learning styles - visual, aural, verbal, physical, logical, social, and solitary.  I found a quick explanation of each style here:
You can actually have more than one dominant learning style.  I'm a solitary learner but I'm also a verbal learner and a social learner.  Bloggers took a short quiz and learned their own learning style and got some information on it.  For fun, we also aggregated and displayed the quiz results in real time - and that's when Dr. McQuaig noticed something interesting. 

Dr. McQuaig told me that the most common learning style is visual.  This shouldn't come as a big surprise. Aural and physical learning styles are the next most common.  But look at how the BlogHer folks did:


The visual learning style was actually the least common of the bloggers who took the quiz. The most common learning style for these bloggers was verbal - and it was no contest.  Verbal learners were followed by social learners and solitary learners. (The percentages work out to more than 100 because again, a person can have more than one learning style.)

Now, this is by no means a scientific survey, and Dr. McQuaig would be the first person to say that.  Researchers would go on about things like selection bias and so on, and they'd be right.  There's no way we could say this quiz represents all bloggers.  There's no way we could say it represents all women bloggers.  We couldn't even say this represents all women bloggers who attend blogging conferences.   But we got enough people to take the quiz that I do think we may have stumbled on to a rather interesting research idea.  

If someone could demonstrate a significant difference in the learning styles of bloggers or even a particular type of blogger, it would certainly have an impact on people in my line of work.  If I'm designing a blogger outreach campaign, I want the material I use to be as accessible as possible to the people I'm trying to reach.  If they're verbal learners, for example, I'm more likely to use tools that allow bloggers to both see and hear words, and make use of acronyms.    And it's not just bloggers vs. the general population - if say, mom bloggers are verbal learners while science bloggers are logical learners and political bloggers are visual learners, the tactics I employ may vary for each.

Just a thought.

04 August 2010

Dude Looks Like A BlogHer

I’ll be attending BlogHer later this week, my first time there since 2007.  A lot has happened since then, and sadly, not so much has changed since then.   I’m looking forward to catching up with some bloggers I met there (or knew before then) and have stayed in touch with ever since.


University of Phoenix is trying to tailor its offering to better fit the personal learning styles of its students.  Some people learn by doing, others by listening, others by watching.   Some people learn best in groups.  (Turns out I’m a “solitary learner.”) When you present material in ways that better fit a student’s learning style, you give that student a better shot at retaining that information.  University of Phoenix will be using this learning style assessment with a number of other self-assessment tools so people can get information in the format that works best for them.  Dr. Angie McQuaig is an expert on this topic and she’ll be at the conference. If you see the hashtag #HowDoYouLearn on twitter, that’s us.

At the conference we’ll be inviting bloggers to identify their own learning styles by taking a short online quiz and we’ll be explaining more about how this works.  You can take the quiz here if you like (no, you won’t be put on some freaky email list and you won’t be spammed by anyone) and get information on your learning style.  It only takes a couple of minutes, and it’s impossible to flunk.

Kinda cool, right?

02 August 2010

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.