Media coverage of ESOF

I’d like to belatedly respond to the analysis of ESOF 2008 media operations offered by both Ingrid Wünning Tschol and István Palugyai in last August`s Euroscientist newsletter. In doing so I’ll base my response on the media evaluation which I sent to the ESOF steering committee in December 2008.

In that evaluation I included a reflection on the media operations at ESOF 2008 as well as an extensive list of recommendations for Torino 2010 (and future ESOF operations).

I would like to say at the outset that the fact that an analysis of ESOF 2008 appeared in the Euroscientist so soon after the event was surprising in itself. It is fairly standard procedure that major events of this kind spend a few months consulting with team members to gather the necessary information required to make a serious evaluation of the various strands of the conference. This did happen in the subsequent evaluations submitted from various ESOF 2008 teams to the steering committees later in the year, so it was strange that they were not considered worthy of reflection for a public discussion of the event such as the one in Euroscientist, no matter how brief.

Having said that I am more than happy to accept fair criticism for any failings in the media operations of ESOF 2008 provided they are substantiated. I think everyone involved in the ESOF events up until now is acutely aware that ESOF is still a growing baby and learning to find its feet. The setting up of a permanent ESOF secretariat, as Ingrid Wünning Tschol rightly points out, will smooth out many of the structures for future ESOF events, drive consistency and collate and pass on knowledge of processes.

That being the case I do not think it is in the broader ESOF interest that general assertions such as “press operation being subject to fair criticism” (by international reporters) are made in an industry forum without any details to back it up.

Success outcomes at gatherings of the ESOF kind are by their very nature an interaction of different planning structures whether it be media, promotions, programming, or sponsorship. In the case of media coverage there is always a general rule of thumb – that media interest in a conference is only as good as its programming. I’d like to add here that when I came on board to work at ESOF the programme had already been determined. From then onwards we had to work media round with what we had in front us programme-wise.

A gathering of this kind that seeks to both present a programme that attracts media interest (either onsite or offsite) needs to follow some standard scheduling rules.

Plenary sessions are generally the driver of the themes of each new day of a conference. They generally take place first thing in the morning, followed by a press conference with the participants. ESOF 2008 on the other hand chose to place its plenaries at midday and the participants, with all due respect, were well known scientists talking about themselves or their specialised field. Hardly ground breaking for the media. The lack of strong newsworthy plenaries in the morning was always going to mean that there was no clear focus for the media on the day’s events. Yes, the scientists and Nobel Prize winners should be given a space. Midday is fine but it would be wiser not to call them plenary sessions but, rather, Guest Lectures or something similar.

There was similar confusion on the opening day. A conference that begins in the afternoon on Friday, as any working journalist will tell you, is media suicide. It means that most media cannot file a story that day, if in fact they can come. Worse still, the lack of media input into the programming meant that Friday threw up five of the conference’s key and most media-friendly speakers talking at parallel times, making it impossible for journalists to get to all of them. Key speakers need to be programmed early in the day and, where appropriate, in plenary sessions.

I also personally think that future ESOF´s after Turin ought to strongly consider beginning on a Thursday, as the AAAS does, to generate media coverage on what should be its two strongest days. I also think there is a strong argument to begin the event on a Monday, preceded by an opening ceremony and press conference on the Sunday afternoon/evening before. The week would therefore begin with strong opening coverage that has a much better chance of being continued throughout the week (of course the programme has to be worthwhile too). The highly successful international AIDS Conferences are run on this basis and kick-started in a big way with major news running first thing on Monday morning, setting the scene for the rest of the week. There is also no reason that the public event side of ESOF couldn’t run on the weekend leading into the event,: in fact, it would more than likely generate further interest in the event.

But back to the programme. I understand that there has been considerable reflection post-event by some key figures in ESOF and Euroscience on the need to include more newsworthy events (and speakers) at future ESOF gatherings. On this point I am absolutely in agreement with István Palugyai that media are going to be much more willing to cover parts of ESOF if they are given a heads up on new research/findings/reports/major speakers. In fact, at events of this kind, they expect it.

Again, as Palugyai suggests, the ESOF programming teams should look to key university research being represented at future events. But why not go further? Why not approach the likes of The Lancet to publish a key piece of research (in cooperation with the authors of course) to coincide with ESOF dates? Why not approach the likes of Greenpeace, WWF and other any number of Brussels-based NGOs to release key reports on climate change, clean energy or whatever the topic may be at ESOF? They’re all worth investigating, the key proviso being that such approaches need to be instigated at least 12 months prior to the event as they involve considerable negotiation.

To finish up I’d like to make observations on the perception that ESOF 2008 did not gain “successful media coverage.” I will not go into details here – the full extent of media coverage has been well documented in other forums. But I would like to point out at this stage that it is equally important to understand that media coverage is not just limited to print coverage.

A few observations:

• Some two weeks out in the lead up to ESOF a number of Catalonia’s major newspapers major carried major stories on the conference.

• A week out from the event a press conference was held in Barcelona attended by all Catalan and most national media organisations and run widely that evening and next day.

• On the Thursday before ESOF officially began, a promotional event titled Mass Experiment (Archimedes Dream) was held next to an iconic Barcelona landmark. A huge number of local, regional and national broadcast media attended and the event was broadcast widely as well as being covered in key newspapers. Associated Press Television News (APTN) interviewed one of ESOF´s co-directors.

• ESOF garnered considerable media print coverage in key local/regional and national newspapers. Spain’s second biggest circulating national daily, El Mundo, also ran a special feature story in its weekend magazine on Pedro Alonso to coincide with ESOF.

• On the opening day of the conference Sir Richard Mottram was interviewed by APTN. In addition a media team (comprising of APTN employees from London, a media consultant and videographer) was assembled to work onsite. Each day it filmed, edited and distributed a Video News Release which was then distributed to London headquarters.

• The Guardian story on the Sahara providing solar energy to Europe ran in some 25 countries and was an example of how some solid news can generate reporter interest.

Some more astute and media inclusive programming together with an increased budget for a complete APTN service onsite would go a long way to multiplying media coverage at future ESOF events.