Can you relate? You simply cannot believe that common sense and scientific evidence do not resonate with some people.
You find it quite irritating to read about the nonsense some people believe, especially acknowledging how their “freedom of expression” actually harms public health, including the health of your family and friends.
I am with you on it.
However, I can not neglect the common sense of the communication profession, which is absolutely sacrificed and molested by the professional arrogance of experts and scientists from “respectable” professions. For me, that notion is the best evidence that so-called global conspiracy for vaccines does not exist. I would expect it to come up with a solid communication strategy - at least consulting great psychology, behavioral or marketing minds and learning from their experiences. In other words - I am shocked (and saddened) by the level of detachment between the scientific silos.
For a long time I thought I was missing something - being a simple mortal, former journalist, merely trying to understand some complex issues discussed and presented by renowned experts. The more I learned, the more I realized there is nothing wrong with my curiosity and skepticism. The other day I saw a little girl asking her dad if she could get a kitten as a pet. His response was a clear "no''. Her face changed, disappointed, and I remembered my dad's response to a similar question, years ago. “A pet is not a toy.” - he used to say. He would go on to explain that I was too young and busy for a level of responsibility caring for another living creature. Such a response helped me to recover from a childish disappointment much better than the recent response to a little girl I witnessed: “Nope, because I say so.” This model of communication has a big room for improvement - and that task cannot simply be neglected, outsourced or detached from the “expertise” or the “authority”.
Writing about the most common mistakes in non-profit communication, I mentioned the “Detachment Strategy” and this is one of the examples why scientific advancement cannot afford the detachment from reality - in this case represented by the communication professionals. I am a great fan of science communicators and I understand how demanding their task is. It requires intellectual, financial and technological resources.
Even before the investment in planning, production and placement of their materials, what is often missing is the humility in understanding that different people have different interests, abilities and capacities, as beautifully explained by Neil deGrase Tyson and Richard Dawkins in this interview.
In addition to that, the ”battle for people's minds” intensifies daily: some estimates say that an average person daily receives between 6 and 10 thousands messages - from information, advertising to educational or emotional prompts. Modern marketing experts are aware that “competition” today means not only a comparison between similar offers to a consumer, but also a competition for their attention and precious time. One of the modern marketing experts Gary Vaynerchuk often says that everyone will have to become a media company, to gain visibility for their business or ideas.
Finally, the element of trust plays a significant role in communication. Year after year, the World Values Survey confirms that people trust people they know, much more than they trust institutions of any kind (press, government, international organizations...). As much as this helps marketing professionals to craft their campaigns, it also seems to confuse science, public health, and non-profit communicators.
Most of them rely on their PR department, or communication team to “do the communication”, without bothering the experts. They think dedicating a budget for communication or promotion can justify their detachment from communication. Experts often respond “we have that young boy/girl and they are good with online promotion”.
Regardless of how important it is to have individual conversations, lectures and meetings, it is a simple missed opportunity if the scientists and experts allow prejudice, guessing and lack of understanding to form opinions about the facts within their expertise. All the time, even if they are not in direct contact, their audiences are exposed to their brand or image. Even with all good intentions and best efforts, can they trust a junior communication colleague, an overwhelmed PR manager or a professional marketing agency to convey a complex issue to an external audience?
What can they do instead? Apply an EASY approach, or:
Clarify, first for themselves, and then for their colleagues or contractors what they want to be seen, heard and understood.
Define a target audience and what is the desired end result of their communication or visibility.
Explain how they will know when they achieve that result.
Be careful with communicating numbers. The research reveals that fewer than 10% of US adults can easily understand numbers and stats. This percentage can vary from country to country, but I would not expect a dramatic difference, having in mind other indicators of scientific and numerical literacy.
Communicate!
BONUS: Avoid comments like: “this is not what I meant”, or “because I say so” because:
👉🏻 It is scientifically unlikely to expect people's ability to read an expert's mind.
👉🏻 It is impossible to impose or to enforce trust.
👉🏻 It requires a specific expertise to research, test and share knowledge about building trust.
In the end, an attempt to develop a public information campaign for "general public" or " for everyone" would be as futile as an attempt to develop a single vaccine for all viruses.
There is no shame in asking questions. It would be a shame not to.
Just saying.
Comments