Outbound is dead.
So, how can we be better scientists?
As I’m off to AMP 2016 for a week, I’m digressing off on a tangent a little bit from the normal ‘science’ post that will undoubtedly feature a lot of the latest new technologies promoted at the conference.
You see, as I’ve been preparing for the conference: what I’m going to go look at/who I’m going to talk to, it’s really raised a massive question for me:
How can scientists, being absolutely bombarded by promotions, expect to sift through all the ‘marketing’ to find the actual gems?
As an example, my inbox has recently exploded with advertising of the ‘#1 new ‘x’ and the ‘best NGS technology since sliced bread’ in advance of AMP. I really dislike this approach and it links back to my title: outbound is dead. At least to me.
So what are the solutions? There are several great books that I’ve been reading recently that summarise theories nicely and how we, as scientists/marketeers, can do better. Catalytic Experiences by Hamid Ghanadan and Making the Complex, Compelling by David Chapin are two in particular which I’ve enjoyed for anyone who wanted to read more…
They really highlight the necessity of thorough planning, tapping into the humanistic marketing approach and developing powerful statements. But slapping a value proposition onto an outbound email? No thanks. If I did have one suggestion to improve these frameworks/books, however, it would be to try and keep up with the digital trends. Hamid argues that strategy should be prioritised over digital mechanisms, which I agree to a certain extent, but in some scenarios I would argue the exact opposite (more on that below!)
By the way: Did anyone get Asuragen’s wagon email?(see photo) Gimmicky? Yes. But effective? Yes…
How can we transfer knowledge in the 21st century?
They say in the marketing community that ‘content is key’, but in reality it’s not what you say, but how you say it that really matters. Communication is key in transferring knowledge. To this end, I recently did a survey of my readers on this topic which you can find (and fill out!) here.
Also, if you’re interested in the results, you can download and share the results in pdf form here: market-survey-results-online
Before you think it, yes, it’s done in microsoft word. Read more below to find out why…Serious/professional? No. Humanistic marketing? Yes.
Are you time poor? Here’s the general conclusions:
Frequency of use
- Everyone reads blogs (hardly surprising given the target audience of this survey!)
- Infographics are rarely read/looked at, whether this is due to the lack of infographics in the market or the lack of interest in them
- Photo sharing is a big channel,
- Podcasts are a rare communication method,
- Physical scientific newspapers are a dying communication channel,
Online formats preferences
- Shorter articles are preferred; this is in line with the global trend of people believing they are becoming increasingly ‘time-poor’ and the era of information overload,
- Slides/presentations and photos are the second preferred method of communications
Tone of voice preferences
- Informative communications are #1
- ‘Educational’ comes a close 2nd, perhaps perceived as being patronizing to not make the first slot
- People prefer friendly content, but not so far as to say humorous
- The idea of ‘serious’ communications are unwanted
How can we amplify our communication channels?
- #1 = Email
- #2 = Linkedin
- #3 = Twitter
Technology has revolutionised not only science, but how we communicate too. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you see it, it does mean that anyone with a laptop and an internet connection can promote their ‘next big thing’ but also that there’s a tremendous amount of spam and rubbish to trawl through to find what you’re looking for…
As scientists, marketeers and human beings in this modern era, it’s increasingly becoming less about the ‘what‘ you’re trying to sell/communicate, but the ‘how‘.
…can anyone remember how to tell a story?