Earlier this summer, as you may recall, NASA completed a new strategic communications plan with a “core message” as its central theme: “NASA explores for answers that power our future.” The response to it has been, shall we say, less than overwhelming. So much so, in fact, that Loretta Whitesides, blogging on Wired.com, solicited suggestions for a new slogan, claiming that, “The campaign [surrounding that slogan] now seems to be aborted.” Could Wired readers come up with alternatives?
Wired.com readers did respond, with all the seriousness you would expect from such a request. Which is to say, not much. As of late Sunday afternoon, the list of “top-rated” submissions (available on a follow-up blog post or directly here and apparently ranked by the difference between positive and negative votes) features such sterling submissions as “All your space are belong to U.S.”, “NASA: Billions Of Dollars Spent and Still No Death Star”, and the utterly nonsensical “SO I HERD U LIEK MUDKIPZ” as the top three. If there are any gems, they’ve long been buried in a mass of LOLcats, Uranus jokes, and other drivel. (Perhaps the best one, still ranked in the top 25 for now, is “Ya know what? We’re beginning to think our slogan doesn’t suck too bad after all this [expletive] here.”)
Lesson? One of the key rules for effective communication is to know your audience, and Wired.com’s audience—bored geeks and geek wannabes (after all, how many real geeks read Wired now, compared to its heyday in the mid-90s?)—was certain to respond to this request with equal measures of sarcasm and silliness. (Having a system to view and vote on the submissions only amplified the problem.) If NASA needs a livelier slogan than “NASA explores for answers that power our future”, it’s not going to be imposed from the outside, and certainly not from the readers of Wired.com.
It is interesting that many of these posts came from NASA people. Keith Cowing had s link to the Wired article several days ago on NASA Watch. It was a popular diversion at several NASA centers on Friday.
I personally like “NASA: One Giant Leap.” Of course that begs the question of what type of leap you’re talking about (i.e., from the frying pan…).
I dunno. Although the Wired poll was a typical internet mob result, I think it could also be easily argued that the apparent disrespect for NASA has as much to do with its languishing flagship programs in human space flight as it does with rude web surfers.
Theoretically, Wired readers are technically inclined people who have some understanding and appreciation of the state-of-the-art and where the future of technology lies. Maybe they just see NASA, perhaps justifiably and even derisively so, as increasingly irrelevant to all of that.
I don’t wholly agree with that assessment, but I could also understand where it’s coming from.
FWIW…
This poll continues a line of thought that NASA’s biggest problem is the incompetent Public Affairs Office. Otherwise, the public would get it. This seems to be a willful ignorance of the problems in the human spaceflight program. There should be more coverage on Wired and NASA Watch about that.
Cold Water writes:
I personally like “NASA: One Giant Leap.†Of course that begs the question of what type of leap you’re talking about (i.e., from the frying pan…).
This led me immediately to coin this slogan:
“NASA: Taking a Flying Leap”
Yup, I spent half an hour of my life to come up with a slogan.
In retrospect, no sloganeering will improve NASA or its image. Only results.
NASA: Where else can you wait 20 years to take one flight?
NASA: We could explain it to you, but it’d be too complicated.
NASA: We’d have a better slogan, but we’d need a clearer mission first
NASA: We’re smart, we’re clever, and we’ll get a retirement whether this thing works or not
I’m with Kevin and HPV on this one. NASA’s image problem has less to do with inept PAO work or not enough sloganeering. NASA wastes huge amounts of money on trying to come up with clever ways to appear relevant to the average Joe on the street. And most of them quite frankly suck. The problem is that while you can put lipstick on a pig, it doesn’t stop being a pig.
As I see it, the reason why NASA has such a hard time appearing relevant to the populace is because for the most part it isn’t. At least not $16B/year worth of relevance. Sure they do some useful things, such as spinoffs, but what percentage of those could still be done on say a $4B/year budget if they were more directly focused on?
~Jon
“I’m with Kevin and HPV on this one… The problem is that while you can put lipstick on a pig, it doesn’t stop being a pig.”
I’ll fourth the motion, at least as far as it extends to the past 30-odd years and current future plans for NASA’s flagship human space flight programs.
FWIW…
“All your space are belong to U.S.”
awesome. thats about the funniest thing ive heard all day. of course you wont get a credible effort by sumitting a slogan contest to the internet. maybe if they did it through universities and the rest of NASA’s educational outreach they might get some real results.
i agree that the real reason nobody cares is because we dont see results. everybody likes seeing some new pictures of galaxies by a Hubble/Spitzer/Chandra panorama or the rovers, but without human spaceflight the general public doesnt care. if NASA really wanted to get people more appreciative they should just make a more visible imprint in the media using both live and scripted footage from the ISS, Shuttle missions, and test pilot programs. my cousin doesnt care a less about NASA, but when he was taking a break from playing some Xbox on his HDTV and stumbled across a feed from the ISS, he suddenly developed quite and interest.
Another reason why NASA is having so many problems selling the public on human exploration is that the solar system is turning out to be a much more barren place than our imaginings from 40-50 years ago. Through the early space age, much of the solar system was still an enigma, and there was still room to contemplate the existence of more hospitable environments.
Now we know that the solar system is a rather bleak and inhospitable place…rich from a scientific standpoint but a stretch for anything else.
ColdWater’s on to something here…I am continually noting that all the old sci-fi movies from the 50s and 60s–the ones that at least “attempted” to depict some semi-realistic future–always seemed to be going to a solar system with some form of life.
Star Trek seemed to never beam down to a planet with a poisonous atmosphere and devoid of life until Star Trek 2, and even then they found some life (and they sure wish they hadn’t).
Even in the 90s, a unifying theme for NASA that seemed to resonate well with the public was the Origins program–building big rotating interferometers that would detect Earthlike planets around other stars and missions to dive deep under the Europan ice.
People try and help NASA with its PR and Jeff Foust thinks its a waste of time. I am sure if Futron had a contract to do this he’d think it was a great idea.
Jeff also did a lot of research it would seem – example: “Wired.com’s audience- bored geeks and geek wannabes (after all, how many real geeks read Wired now, compared to its heyday in the mid-90s?)”
Oh wait – Jeff writes for SEED magazine … I get it now.
“Another reason why NASA is having so many problems selling the public on human exploration is that the solar system is turning out to be a much more barren place than our imaginings from 40-50 years ago. Through the early space age, much of the solar system was still an enigma, and there was still room to contemplate the existence of more hospitable environments.”
My experience is the exact opposite. The solar system that I knew in the ’70s and ’80s was, aside from Earth, too dry and variously too hot or too cold to support habitable environments. And it was the only solar system we had.
Then, starting in the 90s and continuing to today, evidence for water, especially in liquid form, started showing up everywhere — subterranean aquifers on Mars, planet-wide oceans under the surfaces of Europa/Ganymede/Callisto/Titan, and geysers on Enceladus. Even our own Moon may have deposits of polar water ice. And that says nothing of the 200-odd planets we’ve discovered around other stars.
To me, there has been a quiet revolution in our understanding of how habitable our solar system and universe actually is. We ain’t talking about little green men or shirt sleeve environments. But the potential of these environments to have supported the evolution of extraterrestrial life, and to provide the resources necessary to support the extension of life beyond Earth, has gone way, way up.
“Even in the 90s, a unifying theme for NASA that seemed to resonate well with the public was the Origins program–building big rotating interferometers that would detect Earthlike planets around other stars and missions to dive deep under the Europan ice.”
Absolutely. Even the VSE picked up on this, integrating the robotic and telescopic search for habitable environments and life beyond Earth with the extension of life beyond Earth in the human space flight program. It’s too bad this powerful synergy — robots and telescopes finding compelling and habitable places for humans to go and humans directing and supporting the robots and telescopes — has been lost in the vision-less “Apollo on steroids”.
If NASA wants a good slogan, it should be unique to space exploration (lots of organizations and activities “power the future”) and present the “why” of space exploration in a compelling way (“explore” for what reason?). Personally, I don’t think NASA can do much better than its early O’Keefe era vision statement:
“To improve life here
To extend life to there
To find life beyond”
Although the first line is necessary as long as aeronautics and Earth science remain at NASA, the other two lines are unique to space exploration and present the “why?” of space exploration in a compelling way. I don’t know of any better slogan (at least that I can come up with) than that.
My 2 cents… FWIW.
ColdWater: “Another reason why NASA is having so many problems selling the public on human exploration is that the solar system is turning out to be a much more barren place than our imaginings from 40-50 years ago. Through the early space age, much of the solar system was still an enigma, and there was still room to contemplate the existence of more hospitable environments.”
Canttellya: “ColdWater’s on to something here…I am continually noting that all the old sci-fi movies from the 50s and 60s–the ones that at least “attempted†to depict some semi-realistic future–always seemed to be going to a solar system with some form of life.”
anonymous.space: “My experience is the exact opposite. The solar system that I knew in the ’70s and ’80s was, aside from Earth, too dry and variously too hot or too cold to support habitable environments. And it was the only solar system we had.”
The blurb at the beginning of the SF compilation I’m reading charts a similar trend in SF stories. The older ones had a free-for-all solar system background. With the early space probes, interest in the solar system declined and many stories went to either an Earth disutopia or out of the solar system. Starting in the late 80’s and continuing today, there was a resurgence in stories in the solar system that reflected the possibilities there given realistic (if speculative) science and engineering.
Getting back to the slogan, I suggest some variant of the following (derived from the VSE), more for the benefit of NASA and industry than for inspiring the general public:
“NASA: Science, Security, and Economy”
NASA: Be as proud of us as the nose on your face.
NASA: Your tax dollars at play.
NASA: Double your results by doubling your vision!
NASA: Fastest burn rate in the Federal Government
NASA: We administer space like it’s nothing!
NASA: We employ five times as many people as the Department of Education
U certainly spend a lot of time trying to “help” NASA PAO, Keith. Given the repetitious nature and volumn of the complaints, NASA seems to pay little attention to you.
Why not focus on important stuff. NASA’s problems on Orion/Ares. The gutting of Earth sciences and environmental programs. The intimidation of climate scientists. Destruction of public records (did Justice ever follow up on the Congressional request for an investigation?).
HPV you clearly do not read NASA Watch very often. Nor do you talk with NASA PAO ….
I do, actually. It’s really hard to see NASA PAO as the agency’s leading problem. Reread your own blogs. The amount of energy and time you spend ranting is way out of proportion with the importance of the problem relating to all the other ones. Somehow they get less coverage.
BTW, how did Justice respond to the request for an investgation into possble destruction of public records and hindering a Congressional investigation by the NASA administrator and chief counsel? Have they done anything? Have you asked?
HPV (Henry) – I never said that NASA PAO is the agency’s leading problem. You must be reading some other website.
Oh yes – sorry, I don’t take orders – or requests.
If you are Henry then I guess I have to wonder why you have called me for my advice if I am so off track on things?
Keith –
Grow up.
Baaah! Wrong answer. How much did you wager? Everything….Oh, too bad. But thanks for playing Jeopardy.
Maybe you haven’t said PAO is NASA’s biggest problem. But you sure spend an awful lot of time worrying about it as opposed to, say, destruction of public records, possible obstruction of an ongoing Congressional investigation, and a Congressional referrral to the Justice Department for an investigation. Seems more weighty than a strategic communication plan that will probably be junked in 18 months.
Don’t do requests? What are you now, Keith? A DJ? I thought your supposed to be a journalist.
HPV: don’t read NASA Watch. You’ll feel much better – promise!
You’d probably feel better not covering NASA. They seem to upset you on a regular basis and pay little attention to your rants. You’d also have time to do other things – like exercising.
“You’d probably feel better not covering NASA. They seem to upset you on a regular basis and pay little attention to your rants. You’d also have time to do other things – like exercising.”
What a coincidence, I’m about to go out for a run, oh nameless one ….
Good. The fresh air in the DC Metro area will clear your head. You can explain why a simple typo on a NASA web pages is news and alleged wrong doing at the top of the agency is not worth following up on.
Comments on this post are now closed.