Scientists in Europe have an image problem. They’re seen as dowdy, insular, and too clever by half. And when they speak, a torrent of jargon pours forth. Would an image consultant help? Who better to ask than Max Clifford, one of the world’s top PR advisers. With a client list that includes Mel Gibson, Marlon Brando, disgraced cricketer Hansie Cronje, and O. J. Simpson, Clifford knows a thing or two about good publicity. But would he do it? Eugenie Samuel asked him if he’d consider having a scientist on his books.
If you saw a scientist on television or in a newspaper would you trust what they said?
Well, unless it’s an area I’m particularly interested in, I don’t pay too much attention. I’m sure that’s my fault rather than anybody else’s. But it might be because of an extremely clever, talented academic who is not a very good communicator taking 10 minutes to say what could be said in one minute. Because of jargon that means a lot to them they would totally lose a large section of their audience, probably me included. Generally speaking, a simple message delivered in a clear and concise way is something I wouldn’t associate with scientists, doctors and medical people. Therefore I certainly wouldn’t trust them, because I wouldn’t be too sure exactly what they were saying. That might be down to my lack of academic ability, but I think that possibly I’m in the majority. When you don’t understand the message or the messenger you tend to be suspicious, particularly when it’s dealing with matters of health, the kind of areas we are all concerned and frightened about.
Advertisement
Scientists often feel that if they simplify a message for the public, they might end up being untruthful or not doing justice to their research.
Then it’s important that they either get media training or people around them who understand how the media work. I represent people in lots of different fields: finance, health, stars, organisations and charities. I might be dealing with people who are hugely successful in their own particular field, but are often not very good at communicating. This is not something that’s just common to scientists. If you want to go to court you get a lawyer. If you want to get a message across you need a messenger. It sounds like I’m advertising myself but I’m not, I’ve never needed to.
Why do you think scientists can’t communicate? Is it because their training takes them away from “ordinary” people? Or is it because many are establishment figures?
Yes, the trouble is that they become elitist. They tend to surround themselves with work and they get isolated from the rest of us. They might look down on the masses but it’s important they learn to communicate.
Explaining risk is one of the biggest challenges in science communication. No scientist can say there is zero risk from eating genetically modified food or using a mobile phone. How can a scientist communicate risk without creating a panic?
You don’t have to create a stampede. You can give a straight message in a responsible manner. You choose the right time. For example, if you need time to explain something, there is no point in going on a news programme where you are going to be cut off in mid-flow. And you don’t go on a programme where they will end up sensationalising your message, or where they have an agenda.
Should scientists be more selective about which media they talk to and which programmes they appear on?
If you want to give your statement out to the masses without alarming them, you prepare a written statement with your PR person. You’ve got to be truthful. And it should be in a way that people understand and creates exactly the impression that you want to create. You also do an interview which you record. And if you’re being interviewed by a newspaper, you obtain what is called “quote approval”. So you don’t pick up the paper and say “I didn’t mean that”. That’s the way you control it. That’s public relations. Often it comes down to what I call common sense. I find very few academics have common sense.
If a scientist came to you to publicise their research, would you take them on as a client?
It sounds very naive, but if I liked them, if I could understand them, then I would take them on. I don’t ever generalise because it’s individuals we represent. I’ll meet and talk to them, and then make up my mind. If I could sit down with somebody and he or she wasn’t arrogant or overbearing or using a hundred words when ten would do, then maybe.
So in a way you’re saying that you would not deal with a scientist who can’t communicate with lay people, but is admired in their field.
Absolutely right. Someone could come to you and say “look, I might be the best actor, singer, business, inventor in the world but I don’t understand the media”. If they do that then you have got a chance, because they will listen to your advice. I love what I do and getting results is a hugely important part of that. I’m that kind of person. I’m not going to take something on even if someone’s paying me vast sums of money. If we speak a completely different language it’s a total waste of time.
But you do take clients where scientists are involved, like the dietary product X-fat, and CACI the surgical facelift.
And currently there’s Radiant Health, a dietary regime.
When you’re approached by these companies, how do you know that their claims are true and their products safe?
I speak to people that have tried it, used it, experienced it, and ask how they feel months afterwards. I speak to pharmacists at the company. I send it to Harrods, and their pharmacists check it all through and come back and say, “Yes it’s wonderful”. It’s not perfect. We’re not talking about vCJD, we’re talking about natural products. That’s what I do. I get expert help.
Would you consult scientists if you had a client who looked to be outside the scientific mainstrean. Like Richard Lacey, who forecast a huge CJD epidemic, or Arpad Pusztai, who claimed that GM potatoes were giving his rats stomach lesions.
I would then see what evidence there was to substantiate what they were saying. I would also get people in the media who are experts in this particular subject to look at it under my control, so nothing appears until we press the button. That would be how I would handle it.
You would ask media people?
Yes, someone who I believe to be open and fair minded to have a look at the whole situation, who also would handle it in a responsible way. There are a few journalists out there who are like that.
Did you get expert advice before representing Mandy Allwood, the 31-year-old mother who gave birth to octuplets four years ago?
Don’t get me wrong. If I was to go into something, I would get to know that subject. If you’re dealing with things that are important you have to have it checked. When I got involved with Mandy Allwood, it was after a conversation with Professor Kypros Nicolaides of London’s King’s College Hospital, who’s meant to be one of Britain’s top gynaecologists. He said to me: “Look Max, it’s unlikely that she will give birth to eight healthy babies, but we have a realistic chance. Ten years ago a woman gave birth to six children naturally, so it is possible.”
Why did you advise Allwood to sell her story exclusively to one newspaper?
Normally with a scientific story you wouldn’t do an exclusive like that. But in her situation it was necessary, because she wanted a lot of money and she was going to need it. Second, she needed to be protected from the media. Third, there was also quite a lot of medical expense which someone had to pick up-and I didn’t want the bill to go to the National Health. And fourth, the professor wanted maximum publicity. Because I was involved, he knew he would get massive publicity. The price of such an exclusive is that other newspapers attack the person and the messenger. To counter this I tried doing live television, which can’t be edited, to get the message across.
You’re an ardent supporter of Britain’s National Health Service.
I think the public should get the best possible treatment, not based on how much money you’ve got. I feel very strongly about it.
Doctors in Britain get a bad press right now. There have been several examples of medical negligence in the news. How might you defend doctors?
You create your scientist who has charisma. They also have the ability to do good, and be good, and to communicate it. The public will get to know that person and trust them. That’s how I do things. I create and build champions. Someone like Dr Hilary Jones on the breakfast show GMTV gets millions of letters over the year asking advice because he’s nice looking, has a nice manner and he knows his subject. So people will be comforted and guided by someone like that.
Why do you think scientists and doctors get a much better press in the US. Is it because they are better communicators?
It’s because they’re aware of PR. The Americans are the masters of the game. Look at the recent political mess in the States. It’s largely been because PR people created two candidates that there’s not really much to choose between. They go to church on Sunday. And they have pictures of their wives and the national flag behind them. They both understood the importance of image. Image has become far more important than substance. It shouldn’t be, but it is. American scientists have realised that if they’re going to come across as eggheads and boffins it might be impressive to their peers but it’s not to the public. They come across as oddballs from a different planet, brilliant but totally round the twist. The kind of eccentric scientist from the film Back to the Future.