Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: back in the box, CReSIS, Douglas Rushkoff, social currency, strategic communication
Since this week we’ll be looking at strategic communication in the context of environmental media and business, I thought I’d spend this post looking at these forces through the prism of a wonderful book called Get Back in the Box by noted writer, lecturer, theorist Douglas Rushkoff of NYU. The main premise of the book is that business is so obsessed with out-of-the-box thinking and increasingly interruptive marketing that they have become divorced from what Rushkoff calls their “core competencies.” In other words, they don’t actually do the thing they do. Instead of pouring money into research and development companies divert funds to strategic campaigns or hire outside consultants to reimagine their enterprise rather than actually trying to make something good and useful – something that has value and solves real needs. In terms of environmental media, treehugger seems to be a textbook example of an online mediaspace that embodies the power of what Rushkoff calls “social currency.” Treehugger has been wildly successful because it offers a place where passionately involved members can go to pursue a common interest. Treehugger content itself, to use Rushkoff’s words, is a “medium for interaction.” Treehugger marketing and strategic communication may have helped their awareness level, but it was Treehugger’s own competency as a marketplace for interaction, education, and subtle activism that made it valuable to people. Treehugger is a good website and that’s why people visit it. That seems naively simple, but it’s a surprisingly elusive concept for many in business to grasp. Rushkoff brings up Patagonia as an example of a business whose commitment to their own values as an organization of environmental stewardship and ethical business managed to build up a culture around their products and weave their own passions into the operation. They’ve managed to profitable without compromising their own scruples or neglecting their original interests.
One of the things that made my work last semester with CReSIS so valuable was that the core “get back in the box” elements were already in place. CReSIS researchers were deeply committed to science and genuinely passionate about their work. To have that sort of culture already in place was inspiring. It would have been irresponsible “out of the box” thinking to suggest they reinvent themselves through a superficial “rebranding” or an ill-fated attempt at positioning them for media celebrity status. They weren’t made for that and quite frankly they were not interested in the first place. We asked Dr. David Braaten, CReSIS geographer, what his goals for CReSIS were. I expected something like “to be on the front page of the New York Times or featured on the Discovery Channel.” Instead, Braaten said his main goal was for CReSIS to master their latest radar sensing technology to effectively map the undersides of polar ice sheets. CReSIS was already back in the box without any of us knowing it. For the first few months of our project I think my group, and probably the whole class, were preoccupied with reinvention. We had advertising consultants from Dallas come in and talk about corporate leveraging to attain media status and “brand awareness” nonsense, as if making the CReSIS’ logo bigger on the scientists’ lab coats would make them better scientists. It was preposterous. We had to tweak the way we thought about the entire project. Eventually, our team decided to go with the slogan “visionary science that inspires” because we finally realized that in order for CReSIS to be successful it must continue to innovate and research and that that alone had societal value irrespective of how much publicity it got or prestige it brought to the organization. We seemed to forget initially that prestige and acclaim come by actually being good at what you do and offering something categorically different than research findings that currently exist. In essence our campaign was telling CReSIS to “keep being good at science.” After months of trying desperately to strike gold outside of the box we realized it might be better just to climb back inside and let CReSIS be CReSIS.
Here’s Rushkoff explaining the Jeffersonian origins of “out of the box” thinking and our current “new” renaissance:
-Vince Meserko
6 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Vince,
Thank you for these insights. TreeHugger is a great example of a medium for interaction. & that kind of interactivity is key for online media that depends on return visitors who spend a lot of time on a site.
So, here’s your challenge. Give our blog the Rushkoff – how do we stack up?
Simran
Comment by j500 March 12, 2008 @ 9:09 pmVince, it’s a shame that not everyone gets the chance to interact with scientists to realize that we:
“forget initially that prestige and acclaim come by actually being good at what you do and offering something categorically different than research findings that currently exist.”
The problem is, it sometimes feels like nice guys finish last. If you’re good at what you do, and quietly plugging away at it, no one may take notice. Someone has to point it out to others in a way that isn’t branding it, but asking people to realize that the work of a scientist isn’t to be a headliner (most of the time) but to pursue the day to day steps to answering a question. We don’t appreciate slow, methodical problem solving — we want the quick fix.
Comment by jenh March 13, 2008 @ 3:49 amVince – A couple of notes on your kind comments about CReSIS (full disclosure – I’m the Associate Director of Administrative there).
As you correctly identify (I think), the communications challenges facing CReSIS are not solved by flashy branding or converting our scientists into media machines. There is, however, a “better way” for us to be able to communicate our message and we need (again, I think) smart communicators to tell us best how to do that with specified target audiences. It’s genuinely counterintuitive for a scientist or engineer to have to push years of research into sound bytes that are easily understood by the average world citizen.
Secondly, we have to remember which end is the tail and which end is the dog. To my thinking, science/technology are the dog and communicating that science is the tail. Without great science, developed without agenda, that’s state-of-the art, that says something new – there’s really nothing to communicate. I’m personally incredibly tired of the bold headlines – “10 Things You Can Do To Save the Environment” only to have an argument of paper vs. plastic presented…insulting.
Both the science and communication must function like a thermostat…too much communication “bandwidth” without sufficient science and you look silly. Too much science without the mechanism to communicate it effectively and you look dumb.
Comment by Stephen Ingalls March 13, 2008 @ 5:54 amThe fine balance Steve suggests also has to be recalibrated as the audience becomes more sophisticated. The folks who start off with tips today, will be ready for something deeper five months from now. That said, you know how I feel about tips. They are a vital first step but we can’t stay there and grow complacent or check the earth off our list. Tips obscure the complexity of science, make the work of saving the planet look (too) easy, and reduce everything to black and white when, in truth, the environmental challenges we face are grey.
Simran
Comment by j500 March 13, 2008 @ 6:53 amSimran – great question. Rushkoff has actually commented on blogs as not necessarily productive if they are used exclusively to vent anger (think goth kid in his basement) rather than as a meeting place for people to post, organize, and act. I think our blog is already seeing elements of that popping up sporadically. He also talks a lot about this new renaissance as being characterized by collaboration and authorship. The internet allows anyone to be an author as our blog demonstrates.
Jen – great point. That was also something we tried to get across with our CReSIS campaign. Sometimes the toilers need the spotlight shined on them. Part of our idea was to give out an award for outstanding public service (named after CReSIS) to shine a light on the accomplishments of positive forces in environmental media. We thought of this as a way of building rapport with the media while still getting CReSIS’ name out there. Exacerbating the “quick fix” mentality is the fact that there are only a handful of reporters (at least in newspapers) that are actually covering the environment. Seth Borenstein, for example, contributes an incredible percentage of the total science writing that makes it out on the AP wire. There’s probably not enough diversity, at least not in newspaper, to really seek out organizations like CReSIS.
Steve – Thanks so much for joining us on our blog. You’re exactly right. The message and the presentation at CReSIS needed tweaking and there are definite differences in the way you communicate to elementary school students and the way you present information to hardened politicians in Topeka and Washington. There’s a very delicate balance between overwhelming your audiences with knowledge and simplifying it so much that it obscures its complexity. It might be counterintuitive to scientists to do this, but it’s not impossible. I know it’s likely to set off alarm bells to mention “An Inconvenient Truth,” but it did a masterful job of achieving this balance. It’s really an object lesson in effective presenting (and it even used some CReSIS-affiliated scientists). As for your second point, I completely agree as well. It’s up to the scientist to be the innovator. I love the thermostat metaphor. That’s the perfect way to think of it. You have to have the science and communication working in concert or your message gets lost. One thing I gathered from exchanging e-mails with a number of environmental journalists is that they really appreciate being contacted directly by the scientists themselves rather than through a public relations intermediary. If the scientists can be coached on how to communicate and then actually DO the communicating with the targets, you have a decent chance of achieving that delicate balance. Thanks again for contributing. It was a pleasure working with CReSIS last semester.
-Vince Meserko
Comment by vincemeserko March 13, 2008 @ 1:06 pmThis post is actually listed on http://www.rushkoff.com -go there if you’d like to check it out. Here’s what he wrote:
“The most gratifying thing for a writer or thinker is to see other people implement his ideas – and in ways he didn’t imagine himself. Here’s a post on MediaEnvironment, applying Get Back in the Box to Treehuggers:”
Then he has a portion of this entry posted followed by a link to the complete text!
-Vince
Comment by vincemeserko March 15, 2008 @ 5:57 pm