For the next press release, I shadowed Clare at the interview. It showed me the differences between Jo and Clare’s interview technique. I was seeing how each approaches a new story and hoped this would help me develop my own style. Talking about style, I’m not sure I had much when I started…

I thought I understood what a press release was but I was wrong. I kept formatting my press releases with an introduction, middle and end. For the first few attempts Jo would hand it back to me after reading the first line saying that I needed to have a re-think. It felt very unnatural starting with ‘What?’ and not the ‘How? Why?’ However, once I focused on the first sentence, the rest followed.

I progressed with my writing and grew in confidence communicating well with clients from all levels. I also began calling journals to find out when the papers would be published online and when their embargos lifted. This information is key for knowing when to send out a press release and I found myself negotiating via email and phone with people from the USA, India, Germany and the Netherlands to get answers. This took a lot of determination as I was often passed from one person to the next without progress- who knew it could be so tough? I remember the sense of achievement I had after securing this information from an American office for an urgent press release in one afternoon. It is one thing managing this when working full time, but quite another when you only work two days a week!

Whilst working at Campus PR I had my first original research paper published in Biosensors & Bioelectronics on developing electrochemical assays to detect virus particles, and Clare wrote a press release for it (from a bet we’d made previously). I was really excited and it was a good experience to be on the other side of the fence, as it were. I remember going out to buy three copies of the Yorkshire Post when they wrote a story on page two about my work!

However, the most surreal moment was when I was revising for my PhD viva at home (Ok, maybe I was baking a cake too…) when I got a call from The Naked Scientist to do a telephone interview that afternoon for Five Live! I ended up rushing into the office (warm cake in hand) to get access to a landline before heading over to my Professor’s office in Uni for him to join in too! It felt bizarre but made me realise how worthwhile the work of Campus PR is from the client’s side.

From an academic point of view it is amazing that you can spend hours working hard in a lab, getting data, writing papers and when they are released into the world through PR and journalists, you get coverage on your work from the USA, Italy and China. It is this process of taking research from niche and complex journal publications through to the public arena by careful and correct translation of the science into lay terms. I have to say, making the research that UK scientists do accessible to the world was the best part of the job!

During my time at Campus PR I set up my twitter account and got used to blogging about press releases and news, generally becoming more aware of the communications scene on social media. Towards the end of my internship we began a video blog of academics- I thoroughly enjoyed the informality of filming and flexing my creative muscles with the editing. I hope
this continues and a broad range of people star in the blogs which will be uploaded onto the website soon!

There are so many highlights of my time at Campus PR- interviewing passionate and inspiring academics, nailing that first line of a press release first time around, making Herman cakes with ‘yeast goo’ that Abi brought in, laughing frequently with Gill and Louise, making endless cups of strong tea and coffee (Campus PR ladies are always well hydrated), seeing my name in print, …oh yes, and being a dummy for Jo to demonstrate her knowledge of emergency first aid on!

I had such a fantastic time working with everyone here, I learnt so much about writing and communication but also made brilliant friends along the way. I also hope that I brought something to them, that I maybe debunked a few myths of academia and showed them that interns can be fun and useful!

Bex Caygill (Dr)

I first met Jo and Clare for lunch on a freakishly hot day in October and we got on brilliantly. They had heard I was was finishing my PhD thesis and keen for some science communications experience – and they were interested in hiring an intern.

I was warmly welcomed by everyone in the office and remember thinking how swanky it all looked. Within a week I had interviewed a researcher at Leeds with Jo and began writing a press release from the notes I had made. I wasn’t fully aware of how difficult it is to write simply, accurately and concisely.

I found myself staring at the computer one day, willing the first line of a press release to write itself, when Jo passed me an article written by her favourite science writer, Tim Radford, titled ‘A manifesto for the simple scribe – my 25 commandments for journalists.’ If you haven’t already read this, I recommend you do. He comically describes the dos and don’ts of writing. The main things I took from this were that a) no one is obliged to read your work and b) no one complains that you have made something too easy to understand. Now when I write, I bear these two statements in mind.

I remember my first press release (written with help from Jo and Abi) came back from the academic covered in red amendments – I felt disappointed. Jo encouraged me to call the academic to discuss the changes; I remember feeling nervous and didn’t want to upset anyone. Nevertheless I called them and discovered most changes were superficial and stylistic – and I felt a bit more confident in my work.

Alongside writing press releases I was also copywriting technical summaries regarding cancer research into lay summaries for a client’s website. This involved writing over 20 summaries each of which had to be checked by academics before being sent to the client. I felt at home with this task- I had the detailed science in front of me and was prepared for the feedback from the researchers. Over time I had fewer and fewer changes to my work which made me feel more assured about my writing and comprehension of science outside of my field.

Bex Caygill (Dr)

This caught my eye and set me thinking. For those of us based outside the capital and predominantly promoting scientific research conducted in the regions, meeting up with the London-based science media ‘circle’ can entail quite an effort.

For example, last week, the launch of a new research institute by one of our clients, the University of Sheffield, was part of the British Science Association’s press conference in London to launch National Science and Engineering Week.

It got us some great coverage (see just a small selection of coverage below) – but I was acutely aware that to speak at a 30-minute conference, the academics had to travel for nearly 6 hours (as did I). The cardiologist – who spoke about how the personalised biomedical modelling being developed by the Sheffield research institute would impact on how he treated his patients – had been on call the night before, slept for one hour on a hospital trolley and had to rearrange his morning clinic in order to attend. Another researcher had flown in from Krakow the previous evening and also had only a few hours sleep before getting on the train to make the conference.

I have to balance the demands I make of the academics with the likelihood of additional coverage we’ll get from going to London and being able to speak to the journalists face-to-face. In this case it was worth it and we were really pleased that the British Science Association gave us the opportunity to take part.

However, sometimes it’s nice when the media ‘circle’ come out of London. I was at MediaCity in Salford for the first time this week – and what a great building the BBC have there. Not only is BBC Five Live and all of the sports reporting now based there, some newsgathering teams are as well. I met up with the health and social affairs team, whose focus, like their London colleagues is on national news. However this time – unlike similar trips to London – I was able to spend more time talking to the journalists than simply travelling to get to see them!

___________________________________________________________________

Daily Mail: Nurse, the screens! Doctors to build 3D computer ‘avatars’ of  patients to ‘test’ treatments before prescribing

Huffington Post :Google Earth-Style Patient Avatar To Help Doctors

Press Association: 3D patient avatar may help doctors

Although we, as communications professionals, might know exactly what we need to build and sell a story, to the uninitiated, the process can be opaque. To get the best out of research stories, we need to remember to include the academic in the process and to explain how to make it successful at the same time as trying to ask them intelligent questions about their research.

Here are a few things that bear explanation:

Deadlines matter
When we are writing a press release based around the publication of an academic paper, the publication date of that paper matters to the timing of the press release. Journalists expect these press releases to be issued under embargo a couple of days in advance of that date. Afterwards is too late.

Approval takes time
While we need to take time to make absolutely sure the researcher has checked our work, that is by no means the end of the process. We need to factor in time to send releases through a robust approval process, that could include funders, collaborators, press office contacts and others, to make sure nothing slips through the net.

Honesty is essential
Often press release approvals lead to a process of negotiation between various stakeholders. While we try to represent everybody’s interests, we also need to represent the research using the most interesting angle, while not losing the accuracy. We need researchers to remain candid about how we have described their research so the story we tell is persuasive but also correct.

Photos sell stories
Often pictures produced to illustrate academic papers won’t work for more general media outlets, and pictures of interesting data reproduced in graph form almost certainly won’t, even though they might be extremely relevant to the story. A professionally taken photography of the researcher working with equipment in the lab, or in another relevant context, however, will almost certainly help promote the story.

Availability counts
Once we’ve issued a press release we need to be sure we, or a journalist, can contact our academic. We need to make sure we explain to researchers when the release is due to be issued and that, although we can’t guarantee the story’s release will be followed by a flurry of interview requests if it is, our researchers need to be available.

Ultimately, taking the time to take a step back and explain ourselves makes the entire process of research promotion flow much more smoothly.

But we’ve just had a few nice reminders of what kind of impact visibility in the media can bring.

One story, covered in a high-level international magazine, a mainstream UK paper and in international trade media resulted in interest from eight companies looking to partner the research project.

Another, covered by a podcast and article on international science websites on a Friday, resulted in the CEO of the University’s technology transfer company fielding calls all weekend from companies interested in the technology and the spin out. Coincidently – and of course we can’t prove cause and effect here – the share price of the tech transfer company rose by a third the following Monday.

Another nice piece of news we got this week is that a story we worked on for the University of Sheffield , which was a press conference at the British Science Festival last September, gained the highest number of media hits of any of the Festival’s research stories. We don’t have exact details from the academics involved, but they’ve also told us they have been kept very busy with the enquiries generated from the media coverage of their technology.

Much of the coverage of these three stories was online. Yet many of our clients are disappointed if we gain predominantly online coverage, rather than actual ink and paper. The reality is that good online coverage can be just as, if not more, effective. Online coverage reaches a huge audience, not just through online news sites, but through social media outlets such as Twitter or Facebook.

Interestingly, the media evaluation for the British Science Festival shows a continued increase in overall coverage of the event, with online coverage making up the largest share. The evaluation recommends that online coverage should be ‘embraced’ to increase ‘the reach of the Festival to a global audience’.

We would definitely agree with that.

The embargo system for science news stories relies heavily on the relationship between press officers and journal publishers. When this relationship works, embargoes give journalists the opportunity to report our stories and report them well. But at times this relationship is poor or non-existent. At best opportunities are missed and at worst things can go very wrong for everyone involved.

Earlier this month a journal that had previously provided us with information about an embargo came back to us after the press release had been issued to say that they’d changed their minds and delayed publication by two weeks. As press officers, there is no question that we have to take responsibility for getting the embargo on a story right. So, in this case, should I have telephoned them a moment before pressing send on the release to check the embargo? Yes, certainly. But should I have had to? Perhaps not.

There are practical things that publishers can do to help avoid these scenarios, and many already do. I’m confident that I can speak on behalf of most press officers working with universities, funding bodies and research charities, when I make a request of publishers to support us in our work. Please consider making your systems work so that you know precisely, in advance, when a paper is due to become public; resource your press offices so that they are able to work with other institutions in a timely manner; and think about whether is it possible to set embargoes that work for news journalists.

Science journalists like embargoes, according to David Derbyshire of the Daily Mail speaking at a press officers conference recently. That is, unless they write for a Sunday paper, says Robin McKie, Science Editor at The Observer, speaking at the same conference. Both write for popular national newspapers, so why the difference of opinion? Mainly it’s because scientific journals pretty much always publish during the week.

Journalists like embargoes because they get a chance to prepare a story with time to speak to researchers, do background research, fact-check, and sell the story to their editor. They help prevent “Churnalism“, says David Derbyshire. So why not just embargo press releases to suit your PR strategy and to engage the journalists you want to engage? That would mean embargoes lifting on a Sunday for Robin McKie, or at 0001hrs on a weekday, which is when Tom Feilden Science Correspondent for Radio 4′s Today programme tells us he likes an embargo to lift.

Unfortunately it’s just not that simple. Release a story before the research is published and you risk jeopardising the researcher’s chance of publication. Journals are sympathetic to the need for academics to speak ‘publicly’ with their peers at conferences. They are not always, however, as sympathetic to information being released in other publications, including news titles. Being realistic, whilst I’ve never known a paper to be pulled for this reason, there have been stern words in situations where this has happened – and relationships have suffered all round.

So why not wait until after the journal has published and then press release the story? This is a possibility, providing the story hasn’t been picked up and covered already. Choose this approach and there are two choices: a) put a story out for immediate release or b) embargo it for whenever you want. To be honest, neither is a good approach. We already know that embargoes make for more and better coverage, so option a) reduces your chances of quality coverage. Option b) only works if you get away with it – technically speaking you can’t embargo the story because the information is already in the public domain – and this is really not considered good practice. In fact, David Derbyshire says that it can easily damage the trust between a journalist and a press officer.

All of this leaves most of us at the behest of the journals. Very few match the extraordinary conscientiousness of Ruth Francis’ press office team at Nature, who inform press officers linked to authors of a paper when the embargo will be, around two weeks in advance. Most do not manage this and many do not have press offices at all. Some seem to be distant from, or perhaps unaware of the process involved in media relations. Others are just not prioritising activity that can realise their huge potential to generate good publicity for the title and the research (and researchers) that they publish. This could so easily be changed through valuable collaboration and I sincerely hope that this will soon be the norm, rather than the exception.

Of course, this rarely translates into an everyday tax-payer getting to wander round a lab and ask researchers questions about the work they do.

Yet that’s exactly what happened recently with one of our clients – the Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund – who organised a lab tour for some of their supporters and fundraisers.

For those who don’t know, pancreatic cancer has one of the worst prognoses of any cancer: only three percent of those diagnosed in the UK survive more than five years. Sadly, this means most PCRF supporters are not survivors who’ve had their lives saved thanks to scientific research, but friends and relatives of people who’ve died from the disease, who want to try and change the survival rate for others in the future.

Dr John Marshall was the PCRF-funded scientist who hosted the tour – he’s based at the Barts Cancer Institute, part of Queen Mary, University of London.

It’s quite something to meet face to face people who have such a personal investment in the work you’re doing – both because it’s linked to the loss of a loved one and because they’ve done everything from sponsored hikes to shaving their heads to raise the money which pays your wages.

But it can be immensely rewarding – borne out by the fact that, although it took place after 5pm on a Friday, more than a dozen BCI staff, including five senior investigators and members of their teams, turned out to meet the supporters.

In John’s own words: “I find interacting directly with the public, particularly supporters of the charities that fund us and families and individuals affected by cancer, is an important and most rewarding part of my job. It keeps my research grounded in the reality that there are people expecting us to make progress in understanding cancer and that these same individuals often have worked extremely hard in order to fund our work; they deserve to know that their money is well spent.”

It was really appreciated by the supporters as well; one person told us it had helped them feel much more connected to how the money they’d raised was being used.

What a simple, but brilliant way to create impact from your research …

I’ve just finished press releases for two different clients and both have taken me six months to complete. To be fair, this is unusual. If the fault can be laid at any door, it would have to be mine. Because we have a golden rule – nothing, but nothing, gets put out in the public domain until all those with a stake in it are happy.

Getting to the first step of the process with both these stories – interviewing the academic about the research – took quite a time as they were very busy or were out of the country for long periods. For the same reasons, once the release was written, it took a while to get their feedback and agree an initial draft. Both research projects involved other parties – which meant liaising with their press offices and ensuring all those involved (even if they weren’t the PI) had a chance to comment on the text.

With so many involved, there was naturally a bit of to-ing and fro-ing to get the exact wording and emphasis so that everyone was happy. And so, six months on, we now have the final versions.

Neither story will make the front pages – but to our mind, going through this process in a careful and considered way is always worth doing. It’s how we build trust between ourselves and the academics we work with. It’s how we ensure that relationships between our clients and their partners are not put at risk. It means we’re able to send out press releases with confidence that the facts are correct, not overstated and we’ve done all we can to ensure a fair representation of the research in the media.

In our experience, once we’ve been through the process once with an academic, even if their story didn’t make much coverage, the next paper they have accepted or grant awarded, they’ll be in touch with us to see if there’s an opportunity for publicity.

Two emails dropped into my inbox today from academics, letting me know about papers they’ve had accepted, which sound very exciting. Those emails, to me, are proof enough that taking my time is always worth it.

We’ve spent the past few weeks going up and down the M62, learning more about research at the University and can already feel a successful campaign coming on.  We’re currently undertaking a scoping exercise which will inform the communications plan for the area we’re working in – to date, it’s been a fascinating piece of work, we’ve met some great people and we’ve learned about some really innovative research.

We can’t say more than this for now – but look out for a steady stream of stories about high quality research from Hull – some of them will have come from us!