Should You Write About That?
Scoring the risks vs. benefits of doing expert content for the public.
Nearly every week, I’m asked by at least one of my clients—all of them research-based experts—some version of this question:
“Should I write about this?”
“This” could be anything: something in the news; a new paper; an issue that’s surfacing; a controversy that’s boiling over; or (best) something that nobody else sees.
They’re not asking if they should drum up an insight on “this.” They already have one—at least one.
Instead, they’re asking me to help them assess the risks of them going public with that insight.
Risks to their organization or institution of them speaking out. The risk of entering a debate that’s too polarized for their insight to be constructive. The risk of being overwhelmed by distracting online blowback they’ll feel they have to manage. The risk of bad actors misusing their contrarian take to further a cause the researcher doesn’t agree with. Etc.
They’re researchers, so research culture has taught them to be cautious, to have an aversion to haste. (Although research culture seems to be breaking that teaching with increasing frequency and impudence.)
But overcautiousness doesn’t serve these researchers well when they’re in their public expert role. It leads them to overestimate small risks, underestimate potential rewards, and hesitate about intervening in the conversation. Which eventually leads to no longer being a public expert.
The Public Expert Content Matrix: Risk vs. Benefit
About 75% of the time, I advise my clients to “write about that.” (Which doesn’t, of course, always literally write about that. More and more, it means “do video about that” or “do an event about that.”)
What are the criteria I use to make that recommendation? They work out to the following Risk vs. Benefit three by three, with three potential scores for each component:
Risks
Potential Risk to Your Organization. Is it
1) minimal;
2) moderate (something a funder or donor might question or even complain about); or
3) catastrophic (something a funder or donor might pull organizational support over in a worst-case scenario)?
Potential Risk to Your Credibility with Your Key Audiences. Would it be
1) minimal (something that would tweak a few chronic complainers);
2) moderate (something up to 1/3 of your audience will still be asking you pointed questions about in a year); or
3) maximal (something that will make most of your audience question your continued commitment to evidence and research methods, or something someone could use to promote a position you disagree with)?
Risk of Overinvesting Resources in Defending Your Insight’s Positions. Will you have to spend
1) almost no time explaining and defending your positions,
2) up to two hours on the first day after you post the insight,
or 3) at least most of the free time you have for at least the first week after you post?
Benefits
Timeliness of Your Insight. Is the insight
1) late (weeks after the event),
2) a week behind the event but with unique framing of the issue/problem; or
3) either right after the event with unique framing of the issue/problem or so ahead of the curve that timeliness doesn’t matter?
Uniqueness of Your Insight. Is your insight
1) common (shared by other analysts);
2) new (building off other analysis but with a new spin); or
3) seriously fresh (utterly yours and explosive, pushing the conversation in a new direction)?
Utility/Transformative Power of Your Insight for Your Key Audiences. Will your insight and recommendations for action be
1) quickly forgotten by your key audiences;
2) shared, commented on and potentially implemented by your key audiences; or
3) transformative for the way your key audiences think and/or do business?
Scoring
You might have noticed something about the Benefits categories—none of them are direct benefits for you or your organization. They’re all about the ways your insight might benefit your audience. That’s because if your content benefits your audiences, it will eventually benefit you and your organization in myriad ways—among them, increased opportunities for collaboration and funding, increased access to decision makers and media, and access to more impactful audiences.
On to scoring. If your Risk score is 5 or over (or if any single category is a 3), seriously reconsider your intention to make the insight public.
If your Benefits score isn’t at least a 6 (and scores 2 in each category), forget about making the insight public.
If your insight doesn’t clear one or both of those bars, don’t worry. A lot of them won’t. One of your most important tasks as a public expert is getting in the rhythm of quickly generating lots of insights for the public. With practice, the timely, unique, valuable insights come faster and easier. And you also get smarter at crafting them to minimize your situational risks.