Crisis Communications and Social Media

I read a piece by Chris Syme called "Five Social Media Must-Haves for Crisis." Nothing about it seemed wrong to me - she listed 5 tools you should have if your company faces a crisis.  She included a dark website (i.e. a page you can make public in the event of a crisis), a Facebook page, a Twitter account, some monitoring systems, and a policy for your company on social media.  All good things, all useful, all important.

I think she left the most important one out - so important that she'd probably suggest it goes without saying, but in my experience I've had to say it - you need relationships.

Companies who are bracing themselves or preparing for a crisis need to take stock of the people who might rush to their aid (or at least provide a kind word) online.  I've been harping on this for some time now:

So if you're an organization in the middle of a crisis, you can't depend on news organizations to bring ample, experienced resources to bear and you can't depend on "some guy on Twitter" to get all the facts, what do you do? I say prepare for your crisis now. Build up more sophisticated monitoring systems that incorporate social media tools. Understand how information travels today - for example pay attention to the large and growing network of journalists on Twitter, and create lists of beat and trade reporters and other influentials. Most importantly - build relationships with those influential people now. Their learning curve isn't as steep because they already know you and your organization if and when a crisis hits. They will also be more likely to seek out your opinion or give you the benefit of the doubt. You're never going to get everything 100 percent right in a crisis, but these steps give you a fighting chance.

Emphasis mine. Again.

What Women Want: The Interview

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

Please be gentle.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:

Cultural disconnects: how do you define beauty?

We start with Exhibit A:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to know what women want? Ask them.

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome, Convergence...

Wired Science launched a new blog today called Convergence. It's written by Sheril Kirshenbaum, an accomplished author and researcher and someone whose career I've followed for some time now.   Here's what we can expect:

Convergence is a forum to explore all sorts of topics, but the primary focus will be the interdisciplinary nature of understanding our world. For example, if we aspire to protect biodiversity, we must address social issues. Boosting fisheries requires economics. Tackling our tremendous energy problem involves a great deal of policy. That’s what this blog is all about: people, science, decision-making, and more. It’s where seemingly unrelated fields overlap, boundaries blur, and practical solutions are sought.

Sheril is perfectly positioned to provide this valuable perspective.  She has a diverse background in policy, science, advocacy, and communications.  She's one of those "bridge figures" I talk about - someone with the potential to engage people in different communities and bring people together.  She's also committed to helping young women and girls pursue careers in science.  I'm looking forward to reading her thoughts at Wired (and in her new column at Bloomberg View) and I hope you will too. 

I strongly oppose my recent behavior: Facebook, Burson, and digital PR

(Before I begin let me say this blog post reflects my own, personal opinions and no one else's.  I'm by no means perfect, personally or professionally.)

The big story in the tech media this week (other than a blogger outage) is Facebook's botched clandestine PR efforts against Google. For those who don't follow all things Facebook so closely here's the skinny from The Daily Beast, which broke the story.  Other people can talk about the business/legal/tech/whatever ramifications.  I have two thoughts.

First, I find it interesting that Burson threw its (now former) client under the bus, never an easy decision.  They acknowledged that they ignored their own "policies" on transparency, but this was the work that was presented to them and "the assignment under these terms should have been declined" - i.e., this was Facebook's idea and the only mistake we made was not realizing it sooner.  Facebook sort of pushes back, suggesting "no 'smear' campaign was authorized or intended," but they go on to say they wanted third parties to speak publicly while sidestepping the assertion that they wanted to hide their own identity in recruiting those third parties.  Burson is a legendary PR firm with a tradition of success - they wouldn't be where they are if they used these tactics all the time.  Facebook's record also speaks for itself. Both companies are acknowledging what they did was wrong, yet both companies are hinting the other company is responsible.  Awkward.

My second observation has to do with the exchange between PR guy and blogger.  Looking at the emails it doesn't seem that the Burson exec has a relationship with the blogger he contacted.   Set aside for the moment the enormous issue of transparency.  Is there ever a situation when an out-of-the-blue request to by-line a ghostwritten op-ed in the Washington Post is an appropriate or effective way to introduce yourself?

Building relationships with bloggers BEFORE your clients need them is not an easy thing to do.  It's time consuming.  It's uncomfortable. It's hard to justify to clients sometimes.  But if the people at either company had real, strong relationships with the bloggers they clearly needed to know ahead of time, they would have been able to deliver the message directly and transparently.   That's why I'm constantly telling my colleagues to always reach out to bloggers, whether you have something to pitch or not.  It's why I advocate for bloggers to the point of annoying colleagues.   It's why I'm still talking about the 3 R's of "blogger relations."

speaking of #scimom...

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

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

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

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

#scimom reflections

The #scimom posts as a text cloud

When I introduced the #scimom meme I thought of it primarily as an outreach strategy.

I'm a firm believer in what Ethan Zuckerman has called "imaginary cosmopolitansim." People think the Internet exists as this profoundly diverse information exchange that breaks down countless cultural barriers - but in practice it serves as a force for homophily, strengthening bonds among people with similar interests while excluding people with other backgrounds or viewpoints.  Members of specific communities feel increasingly close kinship to each other - but those communities also tend to grow isolated, and view those in other online communities as more "foreign."

While Zuckerman and his colleagues at Global Voices address cultural distinctions based geographic and political barriers, I thought #scimom might look at two communities that are isolated from one another for other reasons - mom bloggers and science bloggers.  I've long held the view that moms are life's decision makers and scientists are the people who solve the world's most pressing problems, so mingling might be a good idea.  I looked at the different rankings and listings of mom blogs and I didn't see a lot of scientists there.  I looked at the large and growing lists of science blogs and science blogging networks and saw they very clearly skew male - and those written by women focus mainly on, not surprisingly, science.  I also quickly realized that as a non-scientist and a non-mom, I wasn't going to start a dialogue on my own.

So I began to do what I think Zuckerman and the Global Voices folks would do - I searched for "bridge figures."  Bridge figures are people whose experiences help them fit into more than one community and can help build lines of communication across cultures.  I had already been to my share of mom blog conferences, and I signed up for Science Online in 2010.  That's where I met Darlene Cavalier, the founder of Science for Citizens, an outstanding web portal that promotes and facilitates citizen science projects and collaborations between academics and non-academics.  It looked like (and it is) a great resource for parents who want to make science a part of their family's everyday life, and a great home for #scimom.  However, while Darlene is a great advocate, she isn't a scientist either.

I also gave an ignite-style talk at the conference where I tried to outline the need for these bridge figures - but it was clear I didn't connect with everyone, and for very good reason. I was essentially opining on the need for more mom-scientists to speak up in a room where dozens of mom-scientists were listening to me in disbelief, no doubt thinking, "then read my blog, you idiot." So I figured I'd just ask the science bloggers and mom bloggers I knew to write about, umm... you know, stuff.  And then read each other's posts. And maybe that would start getting people in the different communities talking.

So #scimom started out as the pre-planned mingling of communities - a few non-scientist moms kicked in some posts, and a few non-mom scientists did so as well, and they were all amazing - but as it grew it  evolved into this amazing virtual rock anthem for moms who work in academia.  Janet Stemwedel on bass.  Jeanne Garabino on drums. Gerty-Z on guitar. Joanne Manaster on keyboards. Emily Willingham and Carin Bondar blowing horns. And Kate Clancy on lead vocals:

I am going to tell you a secret. I do this job, I am this kind of person, because I want to be a role model for other young women, that they can have jobs and have kids and still have other things going on in their lives.
But really, most of all, I do this for my own daughter, far more than for any of you reading today.

So the #scimom bridge figures are here, they're proud, and they're great writers.  I'm thrilled that this idea may have gotten them talking a bit more about the issues they face as professional women and as scientists. I'm touched at how they've incorporated their interest in science into their parenting.  I'm gratified that maybe they've gotten a few more readers as a result of this meme.  I'm tickled that #scimom got a plug in the Chronicle of Higher Education's website for Mother's Day.  And I'm enormously thankful to all of the people who contributed posts, passed the word on Facebook and Twitter, and read or commented.

But I don't think #scimom has been an especially effective outreach tool, at least not yet.  I look at the #scimom posts and I see similarities with the discussions led by people like Liz Gumbinner, Catherine Connors, Joanne Bamberger, Julie Marsh, Kristen Chase, Susan Niebur and so many other mom bloggers I read regularly. My gut tells me the scientist  #scimoms identify more readily with science bloggers, not mom bloggers. Or maybe they're a community to their own.  Still, I don't see the interaction in ways that I can readily quantify - public discussions and/or links between recognized leaders of the two communities.

Of course I didn't expect this idea to suddenly open floodgates of discussions between online communities.  But I wonder how many people read the posts from bloggers in that "other" community and then poked around a bit.  So I hope that #scimom will continue to grow and evolve and move in whatever direction the #scimom participants want it to go.  But I also hope that people in both online communities will occasionally step out of their comfort zone and do a little exploring in an online community that feels foreign to them.

That's what I try to do every day, and I'd like to think I'm better for it.  And I'll continue to dream up goofy ways to make it happen.  Maybe someday it will work.

Bring Science Home by Scientific American

I think this is great.

The #scimom cloud

This is the text from all the #scimom posts represented as a Wordle text cloud.  Thanks so much to everyone who participated. I'm going to offer some thoughts on this as soon as my workload relaxes a bit.

Today on WVLK: what women want

Today I'm scheduled to appear on WVLK's Kruser and Krew show at 1pm ET to share the findings of my exhaustive research on what women want.  You should be able to listen in by clicking this link.

I'm grateful to my client, Alltech, for asking me to conduct this "research" and to the women who answered my questions on this topic. If you're wondering, yes I do see the irony in a man explaining what women want.

I did most of the work for this on Twitter.  And here's a sample of who responded to my inquiries - it's not everybody but it's a pretty impressive group.  Most, though not all, are moms:

• Liz Gumbinner,  advertising exec, entrepreneur, and co-author of Booty Food
• Sheril Kirshenbaum, researcher, columnist at Bloomberg View, and author of The Science of Kissing
• Kristen Chase, entrepreneur, music therapist and author of The Mominatrix
• Susan Getgood, VP of Sales & Marketing, BlogHer
• Kelly Wickham, educator, writer
• Heather Chapman,  journalist
• Susan Niebur, astrophysicist, writer, 4-time cancer survivor
• Joanne Bamberger, attorney, entrepreneur, author of Mothers of Intention
• Alma Klein, marketing executive
• Cecily Kellogg, writer, SEO expert and social media strategist
• Thea Joselow, copywriter, entrepreneur
• Heather Barmore, education advocate, writer
• Dawn Crawford, social media strategist
• Carin Bondar, biologist, filmmaker
• Stefania Pomponi Butler, entrepreneur
• Andrea Kuszewski, researcher, therapist, writer
• Sarah Braesch, entrepreneur, sports fan
• Jenny Lawson, author, columnist for the Houston Chronicle
• Julie Marsh, entrepreneur, former military officer, triathlete
• Catherine Holecko, journalist
• Pam Slim, entrepreneur, author and business coach
• Catherine Connors, entrepreneur, writer, philanthropist
• Tanis Miller, advocate for persons with disabilities, writer
• Susan Davis, freelance writer
• Amanda Eamich, online communications specialist for a government agency
• Jaelithe Judy, writer, SEO consultant
• Leigh Ann Simmons, researcher, entrepreneur, my wife

So tune in and offer a question or a thought or two.  I'm @dwescott1 on Twitter.

(gulp.)

Justice