“There are lots of people who specialize in marketing, but as far as I can tell, none of them work for you.”
Those were the words of Larry Page at a talk during the AAAS meeting earlier this year. Upon reading this I felt like getting up and clapping. In my years in the life science industry, especially as a marketer, it has become clear that marketing science seems to be one of the harder tasks out there, and unfortunately, poorly understood. There is a serious intellectual disconnect between products and services developed by the biotech industry and the target audience, whether it be investors, shareholders or consumers.
Larry is right. Business and entrepreneurship is a good thing, and scientists must think big, yet remain realistic. Too many companies have been formed that had no business existing. On the other hand, others remain content thinking small, even when the product could probably expand into something big. Somehow the spirit that defines a company like Google is missing from most companies built on science.
The subject of science and marketing was back on the radar following the publication of an article in Science that talked about how scientists could improve their public and policy relations. The fact remains that marketing, in all its various incarnations, is more important than ever. If your message is not being heard, don’t expect people to understand it. This applies to academics and companies. Unfortunately, most scientists don’t really know what marketing really is. I recommend that everyone should read Seth Godin’s or Kathy Sierra’s blogs (her blogging is sorely missed). They focus on quality and appropriate messaging, not hyperbole or spin. The fact is that science faces some major communication challenges in a world that lives in cycles of “15 minutes of fame”. The pace and complexity of scientific discovery makes it difficult for people to appreciate the beauty of good science, and it is no surprise that people gravitate to scientific discovery with catchy titles, e.g. nanotechnology or synthetic biology.
Over the years magazines like Scientific American have done a lot to bring science to the masses. However, as the printed word gets further away from the kind of material that children (or adults) read, it is important that scientists find other avenues of bringing some of the latest and greatest to the public at large. Yes, that means blogs, good websites, and increasingly video and audio in addition to more traditional forms of marketing. If we can relate to the audience, then the chance of the message getting across is a lot higher. It’s not that hard, really.
Unfortunately at this point of time, I must paraphrase Larry Page again. There are a lot of capable marketers, just not in the sciences.
Further Reading
Science Education (Neil Saunders)
Life science hype cycle
Sources
Reuters
7 Trackbacks
[...] I’ve said before, science has a marketing problem. Headlines like these is one reason why. [...]
[...] I’ve said before, science has a marketing problem. Headlines like these is one reason why. [...]
[...] Scientists are poor marketers and whether you are in academia or industry, marketing takes effort and some skill. Not all scientists want to start a company, but they need recognition. Recognition from their peers and the scientific community at large. Historically, publications and a presence on the conference/lecture circuit are some of the main ways that scientists get themselves recognition. But what about the opportunities provided by the modern web? Jeremiah makes a strong case for Adwords, and the cost effectiveness of the adwords approach to science. Quite selfishly, I wish more scientists would do that. I have a feeling my Adsense revenue would go up significantly . Like Jean-Claude, I would suggest other approaches as well. After all, in the end it is about eyeballs. Unlike more mainstream blogging and other similar activities, scientific blogging is about attracting eyeballs from your user community, so using targeted advertising, which is likely to get picked up by the appropriate blogs and scientific outlets is a good start. Writing a good, compelling blog, which provides useful insight into your research is another. I would argue that for a young scientist it is an excellent idea to blog and actively participate in online conversations. As long as you can articulate your thoughts and ideas, you are going to be in good shape. [...]
[...] Further Reading: Marketing Science Thoughts from someone who hangs out with too many pharma types The life science hype cycle Sphere: Related Content [...]
[...] Something that Sandra Porter said in a recent post about SciVee got me thinking. We know scientists are bad marketers. Larry Page says so and who am I to argue with him. Well actually, I completely agree. Slowly, but surely, thanks to video and podcasting, scientists are beginning to come out of their shells, but by and large they still don’t have a clue of how to use these new media formats. This, however, should be treated as an opportunity. No, we don’t necessarily need social media consultants in the sciences. Well perhaps we do, but that’s another story. Now that a number of good platforms are available, whether it be SciVee, Bioscreencast, or JoVE to pick on my three favorite video oriented sites, or even the audio/video offerings from Nature and other sources, we should start experimenting. We now have a pulpit, in a way more accessible than blogs and other formats. I’d love to see PIs interview their postdocs and grad students on video, asking them about any experiment design decisions and where they might have disagreed and who won the discussion. I’d love collaborators in a large genome wide association study to get in front of a camera and have a panel discussion on what the implications of their paper might be. It would be great to see them link to screencasts or videos of their experimental protocols. Wouldn’t it be cool to see a group of graduate students sipping coffee or red bull site and whiteboard out a paper, or perhaps the conclusions they got from the paper, and then tell you to go read the blog or wiki where they articulate their story in detail? [...]
[...] have written about the lack of marketing in science (stealing shamelessly from Larry Page). It’s critical that we do a better job of highlighting [...]
[...] and the attempt to facilitate some of those steps would go a long way. I have written about the lack of marketing in science (stealing shamelessly from Larry Page). It’s critical that we do a better job of highlighting [...]